2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Part 1 — Goleta City Council, July 21, 2026

Agenda Item C.3

PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: July 21, 2026
____________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
SUBMITTED BY: Luz “Nina” Buelna, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update
RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Continue Public Hearing from May 19, 2026; and
B. Adopt Council Resolution No. 26 -___entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Approving the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report and Updated Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Finding the Resolution to Be Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act.”

BACKGROUND
Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) are fees imposed on development projects to offset in whole or in part, the cost of new or additional public facilities caused by the development.

Cities have the authority to charge DIFs by way of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000-66025). Under the Mitigation Fee Act, cities must ensure that there is a nexus between the development project’s impacts and the imposed fee amounts. In order to have a DIF program, cities must adopt an ordinance or resolution to approve and establish the types of fees and a nexus study to analyze the impacts of types of development (e.g.: residential, commercial, industrial) and their proportionate impacts on public facilities.

Goleta has operated a DIF program since its incorporation, originally relying on ordinances and nexus studies conducted by the County of Santa Barbara before its incorporation. The City adopted the County’s impact fee amounts for the Goleta Planning Area when the City incorporated in 2002. In 2019, the City prepared its own Nexus Study Development Impact Fee Study, which provided the supporting analysis for a new ordinance. The ordinance , referred to as the “DIF Ordinance” (Ordinance 19-04), consolidated previous existing DIF regulations into one regulation in the Zoning Ordinance. The Development Impact Fees listed in Ordinance 19 -04, codified in Goleta Municipal Code Chapter 17.70, are:

1. Public Administration Facilities Fee
1 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 2 of 9 ends

2. Fire Facilities Fee

3. Library Facilities Fee

4. Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee

5. Storm Drain Facilities Fee

6. Transportation Facilities Fee

7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Fee

DISCUSSION

The City provided notice of a public hearing for the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus Study ("Study") and proposed DIF update scheduled for May 19, 2026. Prior to the hearing, the City received comments regarding the proposed Study and DIF. The City continued the public hearing to July 21, 2026, to allow additional time to review the issues raised and further refine the Study. The revised Study was published in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The City also published notice of the continued public hearing in the Santa Barbara Independent on June 18, 2026, and June 25, 2026.

The updated Study includes a project -specific Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that identifies the facilities proposed for funding through DIF allocations. The Study updates the City's facility inventory to reflect capital improvements completed since the City’s 2019 Nexus Study and incorporates updated information from the City's existing records and databases. The Study was revised to account for existing fund balances and previously planned, but unconstructed, facilities. The proposed 5 percent administrative fee was also reviewed and confirmed to reflect the City's costs of administering the DIF Program. The administrative fee is collected separately and does not reduce the funds available for eligible capital improvements.

Under the Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies are required to complete annual reporting and, every five to eight years, make findings that the purpose of the DIFs still exists, the funds are still needed, and the fees continue to have a reasonable relations hip to the impacts of new development. In considering an update to the existing DIF rates and to comply with these requirements, the City completed an updated Study to evaluate the relationship between new development, the public facilities needed to serve that growth, and the appropriate fee amounts. On August 20, 2024, the City Council approved consultant agreements with Urban Economics, DKS Associates (DKS), and MNS Engineers (MNS) to prepare and support the DIF update. DKS updated the City of Goleta Travel Demand Model and analyzed the transportation impacts associated with projected future growth. MNS prepared project cost estimates for the transportation improvements identified through the DKS analysis.

All proposed impact fees except the transportati on fee reflect existing levels of service (facility standards) and the cost of maintaining those standards as growth occurs. All fees except the transportation fee are based on an existing capital asset facility standard that equals the ratio of the City’s existing (20 25) capital assets to the existing population served by those facilities. This approach is based solely on available data (existing capital asset inventory and service population estimates). The facility standard is not based on adopted policies, such as those contained in the City’s General Plan or state statutes. 2 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 3 of 9 ends

The existing capital asset facility standard provides a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional public facilities. The resulting impact fee funds the expansion of public facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain the existing ratio of facilities to service population as growth occurs.

Consistent with Assembly Bill 602, the updated DIF Program is supported by a nexus study and a CIP that identif y the public facilities needed to accommodate new development and demonstrate the reasonable relationship between those improvements and the proposed fees. The City of Goleta annually adopts a five-year CIP to identify and prioritize capital projects and a nticipated funding sources. For purposes of the DIF Program, the five-year CIP serves as a market -based revenue projection identifying the capital facilities the City expects to fund with projected DIF revenues during the planning period. The projected five-year DIF revenue is based on recent development trends within the City and assumes approximately 10 percent of the City's ultimate build-out will occur during the five-year planning horizon. This 10-percent growth assumption was applied to the total buil d-out fee revenue projection to estimate the amount of DIF revenue anticipated to be collected over the next five years.

The transportation fee was updated using a similar approach to that used to establish the existing fee. Planning for transportation improvements uses a travel demand model. The Goleta Travel Model (Travel Model) developed for the Goleta General Plan was updated in 20 25 for this nexus analysis. The Travel Model analyze d the impacts of the City’s buildout growth scenario and surrounding regional growth on the City’s transportation system. The results update the list of improvements described in the Transportation Element of the 2006 Goleta General Plan.

The Travel Model used facility standards to determine where transpor tation improvements are needed within the City to (1) identify and separate out the facilities and costs needed to correct existing deficiencies, and (2) address future facilities needed to mitigate the demands caused by the estimated new development. Facility standards for transportation analysis are based on policies in the Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan. The City’s primary policy for roadways and intersections is to maintain a level of service (LOS) “C” or better, which represents restricted traffic flow that remains stable but does not cause significant delay. In this instance, LOS is a commonly used measure of congestion and delay based on the ratio of the number of vehicles on a roadway to its capacity (vehicle-to-capacity ratio). Th e LOS policy for intersections is similar, though the type of analysis varies. The results of the Travel Model and related transportation impact analysis identified 32 CIP projects to address existing deficiencies and the projects needed for future develop ment to mitigate the demands on the City’s transportation system.

The fair-share analysis was conducted to ensure the impact fee funds only the portion of those improvements associated with growth within the City. The analysis uses model output to quantify the number of trips using each improvement and the origin and destination of those trips. Cost estimates for each improvement were developed.

Combining the fair-share analysis with the improvement cost estimates resulted in a total 3 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 4 of 9 ends

cost to accommodate the impacts of new development within the City on its transportation system.

Public Works presented a draft of the 2026 DIF Update Plan to the City Council on February 17, 2026. Based on input from the Council at the meeting , further in put from City Staff , Urban Economics, and DKS, the recommended maximum fees have been refined based on the following:

 Finalization of the traffic model and resulting refinement to the deficiency analysis for the transportation projects. This resulted in a reduction in the number of transportation projects from 35 to 32 and some modifications to the deficiency percentages for certain projects. These changes reduced the Maximum Justified Transporta tion Fee from the amount presented at the February 17, 2026, City Council meeting.

 Use of average intersection control costs for applicable Transportation DIF projects.

Of the 32 transportation projects identified to address future growth, 12 include conceptual intersection control improvements that may ultimately function as roundabouts, traffic signals, or other operational improvements such as additional channelization. At this stage, the City has not completed the preliminary engineering, operational analysis, environmental review, or community engagement necessary to determine the appropriate intersection control type for each location. To maintain consistency between the level of analysis supporting the nexus study and future project-level decisions, the study used the average cost of roundabout and signalized intersection improvements for applicable projects. This approach maintains flexibility for future project development, supports consistency between the nexus study assumptions and fu ture implementation decisions, and reduces the Maximum Justified Transportation Fee compared to the fee presented at the February 17, 2026, Council meeting.

 An update of the library population and resulting standards to reflect the Goleta Valley Library c ontractual service area , which extends beyond City limits . This update lowered the existing facility standards and, in turn, reduced the Maximum Justified Library Fee compared to the Fee presented at the February 17, 2026, Council meeting.

 Updated bicycle and pedestrian facilities inventory to avoid any potential overlap with transportation improvement projects. This updated inventory decreased the Maximum Justified Bicycle/Pedestrian Fee compared to the Fee presented at the February 17, 2026, Council meeting.

 Split the cost of the Goleta Freeway Crossing transportation project (project # R -05) between the Transportation Fee and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Fee.

Based on the Nexus Study, including the changes identified above, the updated fees compared to the existing fees are summarized below:
4 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 5 of 9 ends

Table E.1: Existing and Maximum Justified Fee Schedule

Adopted
Fee
(2019
Nexus
Study)
Existing
Fee
(FY
2025-26)

Maximum
Justified
Fee
Difference
(Justified vs.

Existing)
Land Use Category Units Amount Percent
Public Administration
Single Family Detached1 per DU $3,086 $4,132 $10,540 $ 6,408 155% All Other Residential per DU 2,238 2,999 7,396 4,397 147% Retail & Commercial per KSF 487 656 1,665 1,009 154% Office & Medical per KSF 655 880 2,237 1,357 154% Industrial per KSF 243 329 829 500 152% Library
Single Family Detached1 per DU $959 $1,287 $ 873 $ (414) (32%) All Other Residential per DU 696 934 613 (321) (34%) Retail & Commercial per KSF 151 206 138 (68) (33%) Office & Medical per KSF 203 275 185 (90) (33%) Industrial per KSF 75 105 69 (36) (35%) Parks & Recreation
Residential Subdivisions (Quimby Act)
Single Family Detached1 per DU $14,998 $20,084 $36,913 $16,829 84% All Other Residential per DU 10,880 14,572 25,902 11,330 78% All Other Development (Mitigation Fee Act)
Single Family Detached1 per DU $11,900 $15,928 $32,895 $16,967 107% All Other Residential per DU 7,947 13,175 23,083 9,908 75% Retail & Commercial per KSF 1,880 2,519 5,196 2,677 106% Office & Medical per KSF 2,525 3,382 6,981 3,599 106% Industrial per KSF 936 1,257 2,587 1,330 106%
Storm Drain
Single Family Detached1 per DU $ 3,596 $ 4,817 $10,845 $ 6,028 125% All Other Residential per DU 2,609 3,494 3,904 410 12% Retail & Commercial per KSF 1,988 2,665 6,290 3,625 136% Office & Medical per KSF 2,671 3,578 4,338 760 21% Industrial per KSF 990 1,329 5,097 3,768 284%

Transportation
All Land Uses
per PM
Peak Hour
Trip
$ 12,450 $16,665 $ 21,866 $ 5,201 31%
Sample of Land Uses
Single Family Detached1 per DU $ 12,077 $15,165 $ 19,725 $ 4,560 30% Apartment per DU 7,487 8,166 11,029 2,863 35% Hotel per room 7,171 9,499 9,866 367 4% Supermarket per KSF 70,816 89,491 115,321 25,830 29% General Office per KSF 17,808 22,998 24,770 1,772 8% General Light Industrial per KSF 11,835 10,666 10,500 (166) (2%)

5 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 6 of 9 ends

Table E.3: Existing and Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (continued)

Adopted
Fee
(2019
Nexus
Study)
Existing
Fee
(FY
2025-26)

Maximum
Justified
Fee
Difference
(Justified vs.

Existing)
Land Use Category Units Amount Percent
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Single Family Detached1 per DU $3,092 $4,142 $ 13,812 $ 9,670 233% All Other Residential per DU 2,243 3,006 9,692 6,686 222% Retail & Commercial per KSF 488 657 2,182 1,525 232% Office & Medical per KSF 656 881 2,931 2,050 233% Industrial per KSF 243 329 1,086 757 230% All Updated Fees
Single Family Detached1 per DU $ 34,710 $45,471 $ 88,690 $43,219 95% All Other Residential2 per DU 23,220 31,774 55,717 23,943 75% Retail & Commercial3 per KSF 75,810 96,194 130,792 34,598 36% Office & Medical4 per KSF 24,518 31,994 41,442 9,448 30% Industrial5 per KSF 14,322 14,015 20,168 6,153 44% Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. Residential fees are calculated per square foot of living space in this nexus study update, though residential fees are shown per average sized DU in this table for the purpose of comparison to current fee schedule.

The City also charges impact fees for fire and affordable housing that are not included in this update. 1 Includes detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary unit.
2 Parks and transportation fees based on "Apartment" category. 3 For transportation fee, based on supermarket category. 4 For transportation fee, based on general office category. 5 For transportation fee, based on general light industrial category.

Sources: City of Goleta Fee Schedule, FY 2025-26; Tables 3.3, 4.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 7.3, and 8.2.

Changes in total revenue and fee amounts by land use category under the proposed fee schedule are explained as follows:

 Public Administration fee: Nexus analysis updated based on the current City facility standard. Total fee revenue to build out is projected to be $34.7 million.

Change in fee amounts is driven by the increased cost of land and buildings.

 Library fee: Fees are decreasing compared to existing fees to reflect the lower existing standard once accounting for non -City service areas . Projected fee revenue to build out decreases to $2.9 million, down from $4.3 million under th e existing fee schedule.

 Parks and Recreation fee: Impact updated based on current City park standards.

Total fee revenue to buildout increase s to about $108.5 million. Change in fee amounts driven by increased land acquisition and park improvement costs.

 Storm drain fee: Nexus analysis updated based on the current City facility standard. Total fee revenue to buildout increases to about $ 40.4 million. Change in fee amounts is driven by more comprehensive identification of the City’s existing facility standards and increased replacement costs of facilities.

6 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 7 of 9 ends

 Transportation fee: The fee will fund $185 million of costs identified as needed to serve new development in the City through the traffic modeling analysis.

 Bicycle and Pedestrian fee: Nexus analysis updated based on the current City facility standard. Total fee revenue to buildout increases to about $ 45.6 million.

Change in fee amounts driven by more comprehensive identification of the City’s existing facility standards and increased replacement cost of facilities.

The Maximum Justified Fees represent the highest fee amounts supported by the Nexus Study. The City Council may adopt the Maximum Justified Fees or adopt lower fees as a policy decision.

Under the City’ s Municipal Code, Section 17.70.070 permits the City to establish , by resolution, categories of “beneficial projects” that are eligible for DIF reductions or waivers. Section 17.70.080(A) allows a developer of any development project to apply to the City Co uncil seeking a reduction, adjustment , or waiver of one or more applicable Development Impact Fees.

The City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 22 -68, included as Attachment 3, which lists the types of beneficial project categories eligible for DIF reductions or waivers.

The City Council may consider whether to direct a re-evaluation of that set of categories, or otherwise redefine or revise what constitutes a beneficial project eligible to receive DIF reductions or waivers from the City. Resolution No. 22-68 provides Development Impact Fee reductions or waivers for nonprofits, child care facilities, special care homes, mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. Council may want to consider modifying the percentage reductions in certain ca tegories or adding more categories that are eligible for reduction or complete waiver of DIFs. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 22 -68, Development Impact Fee reductions or waivers have been applied to qualifying nonprofit organizations, affordable hous ing projects, medical and special care facilities, religious organizations, child care facilities, and qualifying accessory dwelling units.

If the City Council chooses to reduce any of the Maximum Justified Fees, staff recommends adopting the Transportati on Fee as presented in the Nexus Study. The Transportation Fee has already been refined through updates to the travel demand model, revisions to the deficiency analysis, and the use of average intersection improvement costs where the final intersection design has not yet been determined. The fee reflects the transportation improvements attributable to future development identified in the Nexus Study. Staff also recommends adopting the Library Fee presented in the Nexus Study, as it is lower than the current adopted Library Fee.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The adoption of new development impact fees, and related nexus study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000, et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”) because this action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), this action constitutes a creation of governing funding mechanism, who do 7 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 8 of 9 ends

not involve any commitment to a specific project w hich may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(4), and the action constitutes an organization and administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5). In addition, obtaining funds (fees) for capital projects for services in existing service areas are statutorily exempt under CEQA Guidelines, § 15273(a)(4).

FISCAL IMPACTS:

2026 DIF Program Update
DIF adjustments will be effective 60 days after adoption. City staff will be able to implement and collect the proposed fees as part of the current development process.

The actual fee revenues generated by the adjusted DIFs will depend on the number of development projects subject to DIF payment during the time the fees are in effect, as development activity occurs. All DIF revenues are restricted to payment of identified projects and expenditures and are not discretionary to the City. The DIF amounts will be automatically adjusted on July 1st of each fiscal year by the construction cost index (CCI) specific to California or the nearest region, as published by Engineering News -Record or its successor publication, for the preceding 12 - month period, when available.

The DIF revenue estimates will be revised with each annual budget process, along with the related project costs funded by these fees.

Any decision to adopt fees below the maximum justified amounts established by the Nexus Study, approve a project-specific fee reduction or waiver, or expand the categories of projects eligible for reductions or waivers would result in foregone revenue in the affected DIF category without reducing the infrastructure need or cost attributable to the development. Unless the corresponding capital improvement is reduced, deferred, or eliminated, the City will need to identify an alternative funding source, which could include available General Fund resources, other unrestricted revenues, grants, or other eligible financing sources, subject to future City Council appropriation. The availability of such alternative funding is not guaranteed.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect not to adopt the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update, in which case the existing Development Impact Fees would remain in effect.

The City Council may also adopt the updated 2026 Development Impact Fee Program, including the Nexus Study, while establishing Development Impact Fees below the maximum justified amounts identified in the Study. Any reduction in the adopted fees may affect the amount of revenue available to fund eligible capital improvements, as discussed in the Fiscal Impacts section of this report.

8 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 9 of 9 ends

LEGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney

APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 26 -___entitled “ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Approving the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report and Updated Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Finding the Resolution to be Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act.”

Exhibit A – 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report Exhibit B – Updated Development Impact Fees

2. Presentation 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update

3. Resolution No. 22 -68, entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Amending the Development Impact Fee Reduction Program for Beneficial Projects”
9 ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. 26-___entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Approving the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Report and Updated Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Finding the Resolution to be Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act.”

10 RESOLUTION NO. 26-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2026 DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT AND UPDATED

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PURSUANT TO THE MITIGATION

FEE ACT AND FINDING THE RESOLUTION TO BE EXEMPT

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the State of California, through the enactment of Government Code sections 66001 through 66025 (also known as the "Mitigation Fee Act") has, among other things, authorized the legislative body of a city to, by ordinance or resolution, impose impact fees on development projects for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, provided that a nexus is established in the enactment of development impact fees between the development project's impacts and the imposed fee amounts; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of development impact fees i s one of the preferred methods of ensuring that new development bears a proportionate share of the estimated reasonable cost of providing public facilities and service improvements necessary to accommodate such development; and WHEREAS, the City has operated a development impact fee program since incorporation, initially relying on ordinances and nexus studies conducted by the County of Santa Barbara before incorporation; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-04, which approved ne w development impact fees and a Development Impact Fee Study pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, establishing seven impact fees for public administration facilities, library facilities, parks and recreation facilities, transportation facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, storm drain facilities, and fire facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 19 -04, the amount of the development impact fees has been automatically modified annually by a percentage equal to the appropriate Construction Cost Index ("CCI") as published by Engineering News Record for the preceding 12 months; and WHEREAS, under the Mitigation Fee Act and AB 602 (which amended the Mitigation Fee Act in 2021) , cities must ensure that there is a nexus between the development project's impacts and the imposed fee amounts, and must update their nexus study at least every eight years beginning January 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Urban Economics and DKS to prepare a new nexus study updating six of the City's development impact fees; and 11 Resolution No. 26-____ Approving Updated Development Impact Fees and a 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act

WHEREAS, in June 2026, Urban Economics completed the 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update for the City of Goleta, California (the "2026 Report"), which provi des updated analyses and recommends updated maximum justified fees for: (1) the public administration facilities impact fee; (2) the library facilities impact fee; (3) the parks and recreation facilities impact fee and park dedication in-lieu (Quimby) fee; (4) the transportation facilities impact fee; (5) the bicycle and pedestrian facilities impact fee; and (6) the storm drain facilities impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 Report does not include the fire facilities fee, as that fee is the responsibility of the County of Santa Barbara , which provides facilities and services through the County's Fire Department, nor does it include the affordable housing fee, which was recently adopted in 2021 and first imposed on development in 2022; and
WHEREAS, this update does not create any new impact fees, but rather updates the nexus analyses and maximum justified fee amounts for the six existing fees described above, consistent with current capital facilities costs, updated facility inventories, and changes required by AB 602; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 602, fees for residential development are now calculated per square foot of living space rather than as a flat rate per dwelling unit type; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 Report has been made available for public review and comment pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council retains discretion, as a policy matter, to adopt development impact fees below the maximum justified amounts identified in the Nexus Study; and should the City Council elect to do so, the resulting reduction in project Development Impact Fee revenue may require future appropriations based on alternative funding sources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council opened the duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2026, and continued the public hearing to July 21, 2026 to allow additional time to consider the proposed updated development impact fees and the 2026 Report, and at this time the City Council has heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve the 2026 Report and adopt updated development impact fees in accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendations in the 2026 Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: FINDINGS. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference and the 2026 Report, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated 12 Resolution No. 26-____ Approving Updated Development Impact Fees and a 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act

herein by reference, complies with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of updated fees on new development. This finding is based on the fact that the 2026 Report:

A. Identifies the purpose of each fee;
B. Identifies the use to which each fee will be put;
C. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; D. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of develo pment projects on which the fee is imposed; and
E. Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

SECTION 2: FEES FOR USES CONSISTENT WITH THE 2026
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT. The fees
collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the 2026 Report, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, or such other public facility master plans as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council.

SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF ITEMS IN 2026 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT. The City Council has considered the specific project descriptions and cost estimates identified in the 2026 Report, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and hereby approves such project descriptions and cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing the updated development impact fees.

SECTION 4: CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council finds that the projects and fee methodology identified in the 2026 Report attached as Exhibit A and incorpo rated herein by reference are consistent with the City's General Plan.

SECTION 5: CEQA FINDING. The adoption of new development impact fees (Exhibit B) and related nexus study (Exhibit A) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and t he regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000, et seq ., “CEQA Guidelines”) because this action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), this action constitutes a creation of governing fu nding mechanism, who do not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(4)), and the action constitutes an organization and administrative activi ty of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the 13 Resolution No. 26-____ Approving Updated Development Impact Fees and a 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act

environment (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5)). In addition, obtaining funds (fees) for capital projects for services in existing service areas are statutorily exempt under CEQA Guidelines, § 15273(a)(4).

SECTION 6: ADOPTION OF 2026 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT. The City Council hereby adopts the 2026 Report, dated June 2026, prepared by Urban Economics, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 7: RETENTION OF FIRE FACILITIES FEE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE. The fire facilities impact fee adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 19 -04 and the Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study dated September 2014, prepared by the Santa Barbara Fire Protecti on District, shall remain in effect and is not modified by this Resolution. The affordable housing impact fee adopted in 2021 shall likewise remain in effect and is not modified by this Resolution.

SECTION 8: ADOPTION OF UPDATED FEES. The City Council here by approves and adopts the updated development impact fees as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Fees for residential development shall be calculated per square foot of living space in accordance with AB 602 and as set forth in the 2026 Report and Exhibit B. The amount of the development impact fees shall be automatically increased annually effective July 1, 2027 and each July 1 thereafter by the percentage increase equal to the appropriate Construction Cost Index ("CCI") as published by Engineering News Record, or its successor publication, for the preceding 12 months for which the CCI is available, and such CCI shall be specific to California or the nearest region.

The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to administratively adjust the development impact fees without future action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and fees are adopted, or this authorization is revoked by the City Council.

SECTION 9: AUTHORIZATION. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to update the development impact fee schedule and to collect such fees on new development projects and to take all action necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.

SECTION 10: SUPERSESSION OF PRIOR FEES. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the updated development impact fees hereby approved and adopted shall supersede the corresponding fees previously adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 19 -04. For the avoidance of doubt, this Resolution does not supersede the fire facilities impact fee or the affordable housing impact fee.

SECTION 11: SEVERABILITY. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or the imposition of a development impact fee for any project described in the 2026 Report or the application thereof to 14 Resolution No. 26-____ Approving Updated Development Impact Fees and a 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act

any person or circumstance shall be held invalid or unconstitu tional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution and other fees levied by this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees.

SECTION 12: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective upon its adoption. The updated development impact fees adopted herein shall become effective sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution, in accordance with Government Code section 66017.

SECTION 13. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2026.

__________________________

PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________ _____________________________ DEBORAH S. LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

15 Resolution No. 26-____ Approving Updated Development Impact Fees and a 2026 Development Impact Fee Program Update Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) SS.

CITY OF GOLETA )

I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 26-___ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a Public Hearing held on July 21st, 2026, by the following roll call vote of the Council members:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

(SEAL)

__________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ

CITY CLERK
16 202 6 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE PROGRAM UPDATE

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

Prepared For:

City of Goleta
Preparation Date: June 2026

Prepared By:

Robert D. Spencer, Urban Economics
With Assistance From:

Jim Damkowitch, DKS & Gerald Comati, COM3 Consulting

17 18
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta i June 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... iv

1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 10 Study Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ 11 Assumptions and Limitations ................................ ................................ ............. 11 Fee Waivers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Nexus Analysis Approach ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Existing Fund Balances ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 Factors Driving Changes to Maximum Justified Fees ................................ ......... 14

2. Growth Forecast ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16 Growth Forecast ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 New Development and Facilities Demand ................................ .......................... 20 Service Population ................................ ................................ ............................. 21

3. Public Administration Facilities................................ ................................ .............. 23 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 25 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 25

4. Library Facilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 29 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 29 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 31 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 31

5. Park & Recreation Facilities ................................ ................................ ................... 33 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 33 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 39

6. Transportation Facilities ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 Transportation Demand Modeling ................................ ................................ ...... 41 Local Transportation Deficiency Criteria ................................ ........................... 41 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 43 19 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 ii

Capital Improvements and Fair Share Analysis ................................ .................. 43 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 55

7. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ................................ ................................ ................ 57 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 57 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 59

8. Storm Drain Facilities Fee ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 Storm Drain Demand ................................ ................................ ......................... 61 Facility Standards ................................ ................................ .............................. 62 Fee Schedule................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 64 Use of Fee Revenue ................................ ................................ ........................... 64

9. Capital Improvement Program ................................ ................................ ............... 66 Revenue Projections ................................ ................................ .......................... 66 Capital Improvement Program ................................ ................................ ........... 66

Appendix A: Traffic Needs Analysis................................ .................... [separate cover] Appendix B: Transportation Improvement Project Cost Estimates .. [separate cover]

LIST OF TABLES
Table E.1: Goleta Growth Forecast, 2025-Buildout ................................ ....................... vi Table E.2: Existing Facility Standard Costs................................ ................................ ... vi Table E.3: Existing and Maximum Justified Fee Schedule ................................ ..........viii Table 1.1 Impact Fee Fund Balances ................................ ................................ .......... 14 Table 1.2: Factors Driving Changes to Maximum Justified Fee Schedule .................... 15 Table 2.1: Growth Forecast (dwelling units & building space) ................................ ..... 18 Table 2.2: Occupant Density................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Table 2.3: Growth Forecast (residents & workers) ................................ ....................... 20 Table 2.4: Service Population ................................ ................................ ...................... 22 Table 3.1: Existing Public Administration Facilities ................................ .................... 26 20 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta iii June 2026
Table 3.2: Public Administration Facility Standard and Costs ................................ ...... 28 Table 3.3: Public Administration Facilities Impact Fee ................................ ................ 28 Table 4.1: Existing Library Facilities ................................ ................................ ........... 29 Table 4.2: Library Facility Standards and Costs ................................ ........................... 30 Table 4.3: Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ................................ ....................... 31 Table 5.1: Park Inventory (acres) ................................ ................................ ................. 34 Table 5.2: Park Facility Standards ................................ ................................ ............... 36 Table 5.3: Existing Capital Asset Park Facility Standards ................................ ............ 38 Table 5.4: Park & Recreation Facilities Impact and Park Dedication In-lieu Fees ........ 39 Table 6.1: Transportation Improvements and Costs ................................ ..................... 45 Table 6.2: Vehicle Trip Rates ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 Table 6.3: New Development Vehicle Trip Generation ................................ ................ 52 Table 6.4: Transportation Fee Cost per Trip ................................ ................................ . 53 Table 6.5: Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (sample) ................................ ............. 55 Table 7.1: Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Standard ................................ ..................... 57 Table 7.2: Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Costs ................................ .......................... 58 Table 7.3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Impact Fee ................................ ............... 59 Table 8.1: Equivalent Dwelling Units ................................ ................................ .......... 61 Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and EDUs ................................ ................................ ..... 62 Table 8.3: Existing Storm Drain Facilities & Standards ................................ ............... 63 Table 8.4: Storm Drain Facilities Cost Standard ................................ .......................... 63 Table 8.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule ................................ ................ 64 Table 9.1: Five-Year DIF Revenue Projection ................................ ............................... 67 Table 9.2: Five-Year Public Administration Facilities DIF CIP ................................ ..... 68 Table 9.3: Five-Year Public Library Facilities DIF CIP ................................ ................. 69 Table 9.4: Five-Year Park Facilities DIF CIP ................................ ................................ 70 Table 9.5: Five-Year Transportation Facilities DIF CIP ................................ ................. 71 Table 9.6: Five-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities DIF CIP ................................ .... 72 Table 9.7: Five-Year Storm Drain Facilities DIF CIP ................................ .................... 74

21 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development impact fees provide a mechanism for new development projects to contribute financially to the one -time cost of improving and expanding the infrastructure and facilities needed to accommodate those projects. The City of Goleta (City) adopted the County of Santa Barbara’s impact fees for the Goleta Planning Area when the City incorporated in 2002. The City completed a major update to the program and associated ordinance (Ordinance 19-04) in 2019. The ordinance identified seven fees.

This report pr ovides a second major update to the program based on the most current data available at the time the report was prepared. Since 2019 the City has adjusted fees annually for inflation.

This report provides the supporting analysis for the City to update six existing impact fees:
 Public administration facilities impact fee (update existing fee)  Library facilities impact fee (update existing fee)
 Parks and recreation facilities impact fee and park dedication in -lieu (Quimby) fee (update existing fees)
 Transportation facilities impact fee (update existing fee)  Bicycle and pedestrian facilities impact fee (update existing fee)  Storm drain facilities impact fee (update existing fee) Purpose
The City is updating the aforementioned impact fees and the analysis documented in 2019 so that the fees will accurately reflect new development’s fair share of capital facility costs through buildout. Per statute, the City must update it s nexus study at least every eight years, but can choose to update the fees more frequently if desired. To this end, the City is updating its development impact fee nexus analysis prior to the eight year update requirement for several reasons:
 To reflect current capital facilities costs, which have increased significantly since the prior update.
 To reflect changes existing facility inventories, and resulting facility standards and level of service.
 To reflect design changes for transportation facilities.

22 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta v June 2026
Fees Not Included in this Analysis
This report does not include the fire facilities fee because, although the City collects the fee, the fee is the responsibility of the County of Santa Barbara that provides facilities and services through the County’s Fire Department.

This report also does not include the affordable housing fee because this fee was recently adopted in 2021 and first imposed on development in 2022.

Changes to Fee Structure
The only structural change to the fee program, is to charge residential fees per square foot, as opposed to a flat rate per type of dwelling unit. This change has been made to comply with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which went into effect in 2022. For the purpose of comparing the maximum justified fees to the current fees, the maximum justified fees are expressed per average sized dwelling unit. Fees will vary based on the square footage size of each residential development project. Note that the change to charging residential fees per square foot is not the driving factor to the increases in the fee schedules, rather the changes are driven by the facility standards, planned facilities and cost estimates.

Facility Standards and Growth Assumptions
Impact fees reflect existing levels of service (facility standards) and the cost of maintaining those standards as growth occurs. Levels of existing development and forecast growth used in this study are summarized Table E.1, and described in detail in Chapter 2.

The cost per resident and per worker to maintain existing facility standards as growth occurs are shown in Table E.2. Parks represent the highest per capita cost for residential development and transportation is the highest cost for non-residential development.

23 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 vi

Table E.1: Goleta Growth Forecast, 2025-Buildout
Land Use
Existing
(2025) Buildout
Growth
(% Buildout)
Residential
Residents 32,417 40,169 7,752 19%

Dwelling Units
Single Family Detached 5,533 6,511 978 15% All Other Residential 7,622 9,973 2,351 24% Total Dwelling Units 13,155 16,484 3,329 20% Non-residential
Workers 25,540 35,380 9,840 28%

Bldg. Sq. Ft. (1,000s)
Retail / Commercial 3,353 4,621 1,268 27% Office & Medical 3,187 5,058 1,871 37% Industrial 6,684 7,572 888 12% Total Bldg. Sq. Ft. (1,000s) 13,224 17,251 4,027 23% Sources: Tables 2.1 and 2.3.

Table E.2: Existing Facility Standard Costs

Cost to Maintain
Existing Facility
Standard
Facility
Per
Resident
Per
Worker
Public Administration $ 3,573 $ 715
Library $ 296 $ 59
Parks $11,151 $ 2,230
Transportation $ 4,965 $ 7,914
Bicycle & Pedestrian $ 4,682 $ 936
Storm Drain n/a n/a
Notes: Transportation costs based on "all other residential" (all but detached single family) and "general office" land use categories. Storm drain fees calculated based on impervious surface, not per capita. Cost per equivalent dwelling unit of impervious surface to maintain standard is $ 10,303.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 7.2.

Maximum Justified Fee Schedules
The updated fee schedules based on the per capita costs from Table E.2 are shown below in Table E.3. The table also includes a comparison with the City’s existing fee schedule. Fees for residential development calculated in this nexus study will be charged per square foot of living space. However, to provide a comparison to the fees currently charged by the City, Table E.3 displays the maximum justified fees for the average size d single family detached unit (1,791 square feet) , and for the average sized ‘all other ’ 24 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta vii June 2026
residential unit (927 square feet). Fees for a given unit will be different than the maximum justified fees shown here to the extent that the square footage of the unit varies from that of an average sized unit.

Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature has provided requirements for how local agencies can impose development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU). California Government Code § 66311.5(c)(1) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADUs 750 square feet or less.

ADUs greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit. Charging impact fees per square foot for ADUs larger than 750 square feet meets the proportionality requirement.
25 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 viii

Table E.3: Existing and Maximum Justified Fee Schedule

Adopted
Fee
(2019
Nexus
Study)
Existing
Fee
(FY
2025-26)

Maximum
Justified
Fee
Difference
(Justified vs.

26 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta ix June 2026
Table E.3: Existing and Maximum Justified Fee Schedule (continued)

Adopted
Fee
(2019
Nexus
Study)
Existing
Fee
(FY
2025-26)

Maximum
Justified
Fee
Difference
(Justified vs.

Existing)
Land Use Category Units Amount Percent
Transportation
All Land Uses
per PM
Peak
Hour Trip
$ 12,450 $16,665 $ 21,866 $ 5,201 31%
Sample of Land Uses
Single Family Detached1 per DU $ 12,077 $15,165 $ 19,725 $ 4,560 30% Apartment per DU 7,487 8,166 11,029 2,863 35% Hotel per room 7,171 9,499 9,866 367 4% Supermarket per KSF 70,816 89,491 115,321 25,830 29% General Office per KSF 17,808 22,998 24,770 1,772 8% General Light Industrial per KSF 11,835 10,666 10,500 (166) (2%) Bicycle & Pedestrian
Single Family Detached1 per DU $3,092 $4,142 $ 13,812 $ 9,670 233% All Other Residential per DU 2,243 3,006 9,692 6,686 222% Retail & Commercial per KSF 488 657 2,182 1,525 232% Office & Medical per KSF 656 881 2,931 2,050 233% Industrial per KSF 243 329 1,086 757 230% All Updated Fees
Single Family Detached1 per DU $ 34,710 $45,471 $ 88,690 $43,219 95% All Other Residential2 per DU 23,220 31,774 55,717 23,943 75% Retail & Commercial3 per KSF 75,810 96,194 130,792 34,598 36% Office & Medical4 per KSF 24,518 31,994 41,442 9,448 30% Industrial5 per KSF 14,322 14,015 20,168 6,153 44% Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. Residential fees are calculated per square foot of living space in this nexus study update, though residential fees are shown per average sized DU in this table for the purpose of comparison to current fee schedule.

The City also charges impact fees for fire and affordable housing that are not included in this update. 1 Includes detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary unit.
2 Parks and transportation fees based on "Apartment" category. 3 For transportation fee, based on supermarket category. 4 For transportation fee, based on general office category. 5 For transportation fee, based on general light industrial category.

Sources: City of Goleta Fee Schedule, FY 2025 -26; Tables 3.3, 4.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 7.3, and 8.2.

27 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 10

1. INTRODUCTION
Background
Development impact fees provide a mechanism for new development projects to contribute financially to the one -time cost of improving and expanding the infrastructure and facilities needed to accommodate that development. Impact fees are commonly used by local agencies throughout California and in many other states as one of many funding sources for capital improvement programs. Fees are a one-time, non-recurring revenue source paid at the time of development impact, typically at issuance of certificate of occupancy.1
The City adopted the County of Santa Barbara’s impact fees for the Goleta Planning Area when the City incorporated in 2002. The City completed a major update to the program in 201 9. This report provides a second major update to the program based on the most current data available at the time the report was prepared. The City adjusts fees annually for inflation between major program updates.

This report also does not include the affordable housing fee because this fee was recently adopted in 2021 and first imposed on development in 2022.

Per AB 602, a nexus study must be updated at least every eight years, from

1 If there is no certificate of occupancy, such as change of use that does not require a building permit, the fee would be paid prior to the land use permit. Quimby fees are due at the time of map recordation according to the Quimby Act.
28 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 11 June 2026
the period beginning January 1, 2022. Further, to comply with AB 602, fees for residential development are calculated per square foot of living space.

Study Objectives
California local agencies may adopt impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in Sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code . The primary purpose of this report is to substantiate the findings required by the Act for adopting or increasing an impact fee.

The Act requires the following key findings to be made before a local agency adopts or increases a fee imposed on a development project:

1. Impact: Reasonable relationship between new development and need for public facilities. 2 This finding demonstrates the impacts of new development on the demand for public facilities.

2. Benefit: Reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenue for public facilities to accommodate that development. 3 This finding demonstrates how the use of fee revenues for public facilities benefits new development.

3. Proportionality: Reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionate cost of public facilities attributable to new development.4 This finding demonstrates how the fee on a development project is proportionate to the development project’s impacts that create demand for the public facility.

Together these three key findings define the nexus among the impact of development, the amount of the fee, and the use of fee revenues.

Assumptions and Limitations
This nexus study relies on data from a variety of sources, including publicly available, third-party sources (California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau), the City’s own data (General Plan, facility inventories, certain replacement cost data), and data developed by consultants specifically for this effort (Goleta Travel Demand model, transportati on cost estimates). Care has been taken to use reasonable and justifiable

2 Government Code, section 66001(a)(3).
3 Government Code, section 66001(a)(4).
4 Government Code, section 66001(b).
29 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 12

assumptions throughout this report, and to conservatively estimate the allocation of future facility costs to new development where appropriate.

The City should consider updating this analysis periodically to ensure the assumptions are reasonable. Per state law, a nexus study must be updated at least every eight years.

Fee Waivers
The nexus analysis is based on the estimated cost of the facilities needed to serve all new development, and does not exclude any development that may be exempted from paying impact fees, such as affordable housing units. If the analysis excluded development that is exempted from paying fees, then the burden would be shifted to other land uses, which is not permittable under the Mitigation Fee Act. As such, any fee reductions, waivers or exemptions for development projects are effectively subsidized by the City’s General Fund.

Nexus Analysis Approach
The approach taken by this nexus analysis for all impact fees except the transportation impact fee includes the following steps:

1. Determine the population served by the facilities (service population).

2. Identify the existing facility standard to document the impact of new development on the need for additional facilities (finding #1, above).

3. Describe the types of facilities eligible for funding with fee revenue (finding #2, above).

4. Calculate the fee schedule necessary to maintain the facility standard (finding #3, above).

The basis for the service population are estimates of existing and buildout population and employment in the city and are provided in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 9 provide for each impact fee and analysis necessary to substantiate the findings described above.

For the transportation fee, a slightly different approach was employed with the use of travel demand modeling:

1. Use the same citywide growth forecast as the other five fees put in the context of a region-wide forecast.

2. Use the regional growth forecast in a regional travel demand model to identify the capital improvements necessary to maintain level of service 30 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 13 June 2026
on the city’s roadways based on measures of vehicle congestion (finding #1, above).

3. Estimate the cost of needed capital improvements, and the share associated with growth within the city versus growth elsewhere in the region (finding #2, above).

4. Calculate the fee schedule necessary to fund the city’s cost share (finding #3, above).

Each fee chapter includes a schedule of maximum justified fees by land use category. The City may adopt any fee up to the amount shown in each fee schedule for each land use category. Any fee below the maximum justified amount need not be consistent in absolute or percentage terms across land use categories for any given fee . However, the City cannot increase fees above the maximum justified amount on other land uses to compensate for adopting lower fees for a particular use.

Finally, the Act also requires findings regarding (1) the purpose of the fee, and (2) a description of the public facilities to be funded by the fee. 5 The purpose of each impact fee is to accommodate the impacts of new development by funding the expansion of the City’s existing facilities. The types of facilities funded by each fee are described in the respective chapter of this report and more detail i s provided in Chapter 9. The transportation fee is based on a comprehensive long -range list of specific improvements that is included in Chapter 6.

Existing Fund Balances
Table 1.1 displays the City’s current impact fee fund balances for all impact fee funds, including those not being updated in this nexus study. The fund balances are not used in the fee analysis for those fees calculated using the existing facility standard (public administration, library, parks and recreation, storm drain and bicycle and pedestrian facilities). The existing fund balances for these categories represents facilities that the City has not yet constructed or acquired. To be conservative the fund balances are excluded from the calculation of the existing facility standards.

The fund balance is used in the calculation of the transportation facilities fee, since that fee is calculated based on a defined project list and allocation to new development. In that case the fund balance is subtracted from the costs allocated to new de velopment prior to calculating the cost per PM peak hour trip.

5 Ibid., sections 66001(a)(1) and 66001(a)(2).
31 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 14

Table 1.1 Impact Fee Fund Balances
Fee
FY24/25 Fund
Balance
($1,000s)
Public Administration 683
Library 283
Parks and Recreation - Quimby 6,400
Parks and Recreation - Non-Quimby 2,320 Affordable Housing Development 7 Storm Drain 565
Transportation 1,296
Bicycle and Pedestrian 291
Fire 4,100
Source: City of Goleta.

Factors Driving Changes to Maximum Justified Fees
The maximum justified fees in this report are in some cases considerabl y higher than the fees justified by the City’s 2019 Nexus Study. There are many factors that drive changes to the maximum justified fee schedule. The following discussion summarizes the predominant factors driving changes to fee levels in this nexus study update compared to the 2019 study:
 Increased unit costs (replacement costs for buildings, bike, pedestrian, storm drainage infrastructure and land acquisition). Unit costs have been updated based on cost experience provided by the City, and Urban Economics’ experience in other jurisdictions in Southern California.

Construction costs have escalated significantly since COVID, and this analysis seeks to capture changes in the cost of future facilities needed to serve new development. For example, the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index has increase d by over 25% since 2019.
 Updated inventories of existing facilities (public administration facilities, parks and open space, bike and ped estrian infrastructure, storm drain infrastructure) that more accurately reflect the City’s existing level of service and investment in facilities and infrastructure compared to the information that was available in 2019. More detailed inventories demonstrate that the City provides a higher level of service than was previously assumed, which means that the corresponding fees to maintain the existing level of service are higher than in the prior nexus study.
 Library fees have been updated to assume a larger service population, including demand from unincorporated areas within the Goleta Valley Library’s service area, per the FY 2025-2026 Agreement for Operation 32 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 15 June 2026
of a Countywide Library System. This results in a lower facility standard per person, and consequently lower impact fees.  Revised traffic model analysis and cost estimates . The City’s traffic consultant, DKS, updated the travel demand model to reflect current conditions, and recalculated the existing deficiencies and allocation of responsibility to new development. Projects that had been completed, or no longer deficient since the prior update have been remove d from the analysis, and new projects have been added.

Table 1.2 summarizes the factors driving the changes to the maximum justified amounts, by fee category.

Table 1.2: Factors Driving Changes to Maximum Justified Fee Schedule Fee Category
Factors Driving Changes to
Fee Schedule
Primary Cost
Drivers Key Assumptions
Public
Administration
Increased cost of facilities;
Increased cost of land
acquisition; increased level of
service indicated by existing
facility inventories
Land
Acquisition;
Construction
Costs
Existing Service
Population; Existing
level of service (LOS);
Unit Cost Assumptions
Libraries
Level of service decreased
due to increased population
served by roughly the same
amount facilities. Costs
increased slightly. Fees
decreased compared to prior
study.

Land
Acquisition;
Construction
Costs
Existing Service
Population; Existing
LOS; Unit Cost
Assumptions
Parks
Existing inventory of parkland
indicates an increased level of
service; Increased costs to
acquire land and improve
parks
Land
Acquisition;
Park
improvement
costs
Existing Service
Population; Existing
LOS; Unit Cost
Assumptions
Transportation
Facilities
Revised traffic model and
increased cost estimates
Construction
Costs
Travel Demand Model
allocation; Growth
Projections; Project
Costs
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Facilities
Updated inventories of existing
facilities providing service
resulting in higher level of
service. Increased unit costs.

Construction
Costs
Existing Service
Population; Existing
LOS; Unit Cost
Assumptions
Storm Drains
Updated inventories of existing
facilities providing service
resulting in higher level of
service. Increased unit costs.

Construction
Costs
Existing Impervious
Surface; Existing LOS;
Unit Cost Assumptions
33 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 16

2. GROWTH FORECAST
This chapter describes the growth forecast and related assumptions used as a basis for measuring the impact of development on the need for public facilities, including:
 Estimates of existing land use in 2025 and for buildout of the City under the current General Plan in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Buildout is not assigned to occur in any particular year, rather, the nexus analysis considers the total growth increment, regardless of when it may occur.
 Estimates of population and employment from growth based on occupant density assumptions (residents per dwelling unit and workers per thousand square feet) that translate dwelling units and building square feet to residents and workers.
 Estimates of the need for public facilities to accommodate growth based on growth in the population served (“service population”) by the various public facilities included in this impact fee program update.

The nexus analysis for each fee presented in subsequent chapters uses these estimates to determine facility standards and estimate facility needs and fee revenues.

Growth Forecast
Existing land use and buildout of the City’s current General Plan expressed in terms of housing units and build ing space are shown in Table 2. 1.

Existing dwelling units by type are based on January 1, 2025 estimates from the California Department of Finance (DOF). Buildout dwelling units and existing and buildout workers by land use type are based on estimates used in the Goleta travel demand model. As shown in Table 2.1 , t he travel demand model uses detailed estimates of nonresidential building space by land use category, including eleven retail/commercial categories, three office/medical categories, and three industrial categories.

The following section describes the updates made to the travel demand model for use in this nexus study.
34 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 17 June 2026
Updates to Travel Demand Model Baseline Land Use
DKS updated the travel demand model baseline to accurately quantify the current development in the City and surrounding areas. The 2013 baseline data was updated using the sources cited below. All City of Goleta land uses were reviewed and approved by City staff – including land use of neighboring jurisdictions. The County of Santa Barbara , City of Santa Barbara, and University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) land use was informed and coordinated with the County and the City. The following summarizes the data sources for each jurisdiction that informed changes to the land use scenario:

City of Goleta:
 Residential and nonresidential land use permit data (2013-2024)  General Plan Update Resolutions
 2024 school enrollment
 Built housing unit summaries 2013-2024
County of Santa Barbara:
 Residential and nonresidential land use permit data (2013-2024)  County General Plan rezones
City of Santa Barbara
 Residential and nonresidential land use permit data (2013-2024)  La Cumbre Plaza General Plan rezones
UCSB:
 Residential permit data (2013-2024)
 Student Enrollment (2024)

35 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 18

Table 2.1: Growth Forecast (dwelling units & building space) Land Use
Existing
(2025)1 Buildout
Growth
(% Buildout)
Residential (dwelling units)
Single Family Detached 5,533 6,511 978 15% All Other Residential 7,622 9,973 2,351 24% Total Residential 13,155 16,484 3,329 20%
Retail / Commercial (1,000 sq. ft.)
Auto Services 424 499 75 15%
Banks 23 28 5 18%
Fast Food Restaurants 35 35 - 0% Hotels2 410 664 254 38%
Indoor Recreation 254 368 114 31%
Shopping Mall - - - NA Neighborhood Commercial 1,225 1,861 636 34% Regional Commercial 491 528 37 7% Resort Hotel3 281 329 48 15%
Restaurants 210 244 34 14%
Theater - 65 65 NA
Subtotal 3,353 4,621 1,268 27%
Office & Medical (1,000 sq. ft.)
Hospitals 101 161 60 37%
Medical 150 225 75 33%
Office 2,936 4,672 1,736 37%
Subtotal 3,187 5,058 1,871 37%
Industrial (1,000 sq. ft.)
Heavy Industrial 274 418 144 34%
Light Industrial 6,410 7,088 678 10%
Research & Development - 66 66 NA Subtotal 6,684 7,572 888 12%
Total Non-residential 13,224 17,251 4,027 23%
1 Residential estimates for 2025 based on California Department of Finance (DOF) data.

Nonresidential estimates for 2025 based on travel demand model data for 2024. The amount of subsequent development would not materially affect the nexus analysis in this report. 2 Land use data for hotel rooms (630 existing, 1,022 buildout, and 392 growth) converted to building square feet at 650 square feet per room.
3 Land use data for resort hotel rooms (360 existing, 422 buildout, and 62 growth) converted to building square feet at 780 square feet per room.

Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2025; Goleta Traffic Model land use scenarios (2025 and General Plan buildout); Jan A. DeRoos, Planning and Programming a Hotel , Cornell University, 2011.

The nexus analysis uses occupant density assumptions (residents per dwelling unit and workers per thousand square feet of nonresidential building space) to establish the relationship between development projects and the demand for public facilities and ser vices. Occupant density assumptions vary by land use category to differentiate the impact of 36 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 19 June 2026
development on the need for public facilities. Differentiating fees by land use assists in supporting a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionate cost of public facilities attributable to new development.

The occupant density assumptions used in this nexus analysis are based on the latest citywide population and housing estimates prepared by the U.S.

Census Bureau, and surveys of nonresidential land uses in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. These assumptions are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Land Use
Residential
Single Family Detached 2.95 persons / DU
All Other Residential 2.07 persons / DU
Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial 430 sq. ft. / worker 2.33 worker / KSF Office & Medical 320 sq. ft. / worker 3.13 worker / KSF Industrial 861 sq. ft. / worker 1.16 worker / KSF Notes: “DU” is dwelling units and “KSF” is thousand square feet. All densities rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Tables B25033 and B25024; The Natelson Company, Employment Density Survey Summary Report, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001; Urban Economics

Existing land use and buildout of the City’s current General Plan expressed in terms of residents and workers is shown in in Table 2.3. Existing and buildout population by dwelling unit type, and existing and buildout workers by land use type, are based on the occupant density assumptions shown in Table 2.2. It is important to quantify the existing and land use scenario in terms of people, because it is people who generate demand for services and the facilities needed to provide those services from the City.

Total existing household population is consistent with January 1, 2025 estimates by the California Department of Finance . Existing residents in single family units are estimated using the existing count of dwelling units, and the calculated occupant density from Table 2.2. The difference between total household population and the calculated residents in single family detached units is the estimated number of existing residents in all other residential units.

The total increase of resident units, by type from Table 2.1 is multiplied by the assumptions of residents per unit, by type from Table 2.2 to estimate the increase in household population between 2025 and buildout. The increase in household population is added to the estimates of existing population to calculate an estimate of total household population, by housing unit type at buildout.
37 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 20

Estimates of nonresidential square footage (in thousands) from Table 2.1 are multiplied by the occupant density assumptions of workers per 1,000 square feet of building space for three general land uses types to estimate workers in the base year, at the planning horizon and those associated with new nonresidential development in the City.

Table 2.3: Growth Forecast (residents & workers)
Land Use
Existing
(2025) Buildout
Growth
(% Buildout)
Residents1
Single Family Detached 16,322 19,207 2,885 15% All Other Residential 16,095 20,962 4,867 23% Total 32,417 40,169 7,752 19%
Workers
Retail & Commercial 7,812 10,766 2,954 27% Office & Medical 9,975 15,831 5,856 37% Industrial 7,753 8,783 1,030 12% Total 25,540 35,380 9,840 28%
1 Excludes group quarters population, e.g. assisted care facilities and dormitories.

Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2025, Sacramento, California, May 2025; Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

New Development and Facilities Demand
Service population is a measure of the number of users or beneficiaries of a public service and the related public facilities required to deliver that service. Vehicle trip generation is the common measure of demand for transportation facilities. Increases in impervious surface generating runoff drive demand for storm drain facilities. Service population, trip generation and impervious surface are commonly used and reasonable indicators of the impact of new development on the need for new or expanded facilities.

Service population is typically composed of residents plus workers. To equate residents and workers in a single measure of service population, workers are weighted by a factor to reflect the potential demand for public facilities from businesses and their workers relative to demand from residents.

This nexus analysis uses three separate approaches to measure the impacts of growth on public facilities:

1. The types of facilities covered by the public administration , library, parks, and bicycle & pedestrian impact fees have reasonably similar service populations. All of these facilities are generally associated with both residential and some business uses, tend to be used during certain parts of the day, and face lower levels of demand per worker versus per 38 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 21 June 2026
resident. Therefore, the same service population , which includes residents plus workers, who have been weighted to reflect a lower level of demand for facilities compared to residents, is used for all three of these impact fees.

2. Demand for storm drain facilities is based on impervious surface assumptions applied to residential and non-residential land uses.

3. Demand for transportation facilities is based on trip generation rates applied to residential and non-residential land uses.

The next section describes the approach used in this study to measure service population for the public administration, library, parks, and bicycle & pedestrian facilities. See Chapter 6 for further explanation of how transportation demand is measured for the nexus analysis. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of impervious surface related to demand for storm drain facilities.

Service Population
Household population is used to represent public facility demand for residential land uses. Household population excludes persons living in group quarters. Group quarters include, for example, dormitories, adult care facilities, and detention facilities. The population in g roup quarters is excluded from the calculation of service population because residents in group quarters are more likely to have access to private facilities such as a university campus, or are inmates prohibited from us ing public facilities.

This nexus analysis uses the employment associated with these non- residential uses to reflect their relative level of public facility demand.

Workers are used to represent service demand from nonresidential land uses. Workers include employees, partners, and owners. The city’s existing and buildout resident and worker populations are shown in Table 2.3 , above.

User surveys by other local government agencies have indicated that service demand from one worker is typically less than demand from one resident.

This result is reasonable because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively (fewer hours of the day) than housing units. Thus, relative to one resident, one worker should be weighted by a factor less than one before adding employment to residents to calculate service population.

This nexus analysis assumes that a worker represents demand for public administration, library, park, and bicycle & pedestrian facilities at a ratio of

0.20 relative to a resident. User surveys, as well as a comparison of demand based on 40 hours per week as a worker versus 128 hours as a resident (168 39 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 22

hours total in a week), would suggest a weighting factor closer to 0.30.

However, to reflect that master planning for these facilities typically focuses more on residential demand, a more conservative factor of 0.20 is used in this nexus analysis. For residents that both live and work in the city, the demand for public facilities is reflected at both the residential and non - residential location because both those locations generate facility demand.

The service population used in this impact fee update is shown in Table 2.4.

New development will comprise 21% (9,720 / 47,245 = 21%) of the calculated service population at buildout.

Table 2.4: Service Population
Land Use
Existing
(2025) Buildout
Growth
(% Buildout)
Public Administration, Library, Park & Bike/Ped. Facilities Residents (a) 32,417 40,169 7,752
Workers (b) 25,540 35,380 9,840
Relative Demand/Benefit (c) 1 0.20 0.20 0.20 Service Population (a + (b x c)) 37,525 47,245 9,720 21% 1 Factors based on available user survey data and estimates from similar impact fee nexus studies.

Sources: Urban Economics; Table 2.3.

40 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 23 June 2026

3. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES
This chapter prov ides the updated nexus analysis, fee schedule , and estimated revenue for the public administration facilities impact fee. Public administration facilities include all facilities owned by the City and not otherwise associated with the nexus analysis for any of the City’s other impact fees. Public administration facilities include a range of facilities such as city hall, community centers, corporation yards, and recreation facilities not associated with typical park development costs (see Chapter 5, Park and Recreation Facilities).

Police facilities are not included because services are provided through a contract with the Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department , and the local substation is in a leased facility. Fire facilities are not included because services are provided by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department and facilities are owned by the County.

Facility Standards
Nexus analyses for impact fees often use an existing capital asset facility standard (“facility standard”) that is based on the ratio of a city’s existing capital assets to the existing population served by those facilities. This approach is based solely on available data (existing inventory of capital assets and existing service population estimates). The facility standard also commonly referred to as a “level of service” standard is not based on adopted policy such as standards contained in a city’s General Plan or state statute, nor is it based on recommendations from the professional literature.

The advantage of using an existing capital asset facility standard is that by definition there is no existing deficiency. An existing deficiency exists when new development is funding, through an impact fee, a facility standard that is higher than the existing capital asset standard. Facility standards based on a dopted level of service policies, such as those contained in a general plan, are often higher than existing standards. If an impact is designed to fund new development’s share of that higher standard, then the local agency must use other funding sources for the share of improvements 41 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 24

needed to correct the deficiency. If not, the agency risks new development partially funding the deficiency and overpaying for a higher standard that is not achieved. The Mitigation Fee Act specifically prohibits the use of fees to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities.6 The use of existing capital assets to determine the facility standard is the approach used in all fees documented in this report except the transportation impact fee (see Chapter 6).

The City’s existing capital asset inventory of public administration facilities and associated land is shown in Table 3. 1. As mentioned above, this inventory includes all facilities not otherwise associated with the nexus analysis for any of the City’s other impact fees.

The public administration facility standard and associated costs are shown in Table 3.2. Service population is from Table 2.4. Replacement costs are based on the average of values used in seven recent (since 20 21) development impact fee nexus studies for jurisdictions in California.7 These nexus studies were chosen because they included recent replacement costs, and provided sufficient detail to differentiate between administrative buildings and utility buildings. To be conservative, these values were not adjusted for cost inflation since the specific study was conducted . Land costs reflect a conservative estimate of $2,695,000 per acre for acquisition based on the City’s 2018 cost to acquire the Goleta Train Depot. This cost is significantly less than the average cost per acre incurred by the City to acquire right of way recently. The Train Depot acquisition is a reasonable proxy for valuing the City’s land inventory, since the parcel is more representative of land suitable to site public facilities, as opposed to right - of-way acquisition. Total costs include a five percent charge for fee program administration based on the City’s analysis of staff time spent to administer the fee program.

As shown in the Table 3.2, the City has an existing capital asset facility standard composed of 2.94 and 0. 20 square feet per capita for civic and utility buildings, respectively, plus 20.59 square feet of land per capita. Also included in the table is the train depo t facility standard. This standard is expressed separately from other types of buildings to reflect the City’s recent investment in the facility, and because the cost of the facility was significantly higher than other types of buildings. The total cost for new development to maintain this facility standard is $3,573 per capita including fee program administration costs.

6 Government Code, section 66001(g).
7 Local agencies included in sample to estimate building replacement costs: Azusa, Chino Hills, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Indian Wells, Temple City, Placer County. 42 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 25 June 2026
Fee Schedule
The updated public administration facilities impact fee is in shown in Table 3.3. The fee is based on the cost per capita shown in Table 3.2 necessary to maintain the City’s existing capital asset facility standard.

Fees adopted at this level would allow the City to provide facilities to new development at the same ratio of facilities to service population that currently exists in the City of Goleta today. As a policy decision, the City can adopt any fee lower than th e maximum justified amounts. However, should the City elect to adopt fees below the maximum amounts, the lost revenue required to construct the facilities must come from the City's general fund or other unrestricted revenue source. The City cannot impose higher fees on other applicants in the future to make up the lost revenue.

Use of Fee Revenue
Estimated fee revenue over the next five -year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) through buildout based on a market-based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existing level of service. Table 9.2 displays the Nexus Study CIP for public administration facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP will be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that benefit new development.

If revenue is used to replace an existing facility without expanding capacity, the project provides a joint benefit to existing and new development. In this case the fee can fund only 21 percent of project costs based on new development as a share of total development at buildout (see Table 2.4).

However, if the City raises other funds for facility expansion that would accommodate growth, the impact fee revenue that would have been used for expansion projects could be re-programmed to joint benefit projects without adhering to the funding share noted here.

The City must allocate five percent of fee revenue to program administration. Administration costs include costs to collect and account for fee revenue, and costs to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act such as annual and five -year reporting requirements. Th e City will monitor its actual program administration costs and adjust this charge accordingly when the impact fee is updated in the future.
43 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update December 2025 26

Table 3.1: Existing Public Administration Facilities
Facility Address Use
Building
Type
Parcel
Area
(acres)
Building
Area
(sq. ft.)
Goleta Valley Community Center 9.84
Main Bldg. / Goleta Community Center 5679 Hollister Ave. Community center Civic 23,860 Boys and Girls Club 5701 Hollister Avenue Youth services Civic 14,974 Classroom Bldg - North (site-built) 5689 Hollister Ave. Youth services Civic 6,851 Classroom Bldg - South (pre-fabricated) 5717 Hollister Ave. Youth services Utility 2,970 Classroom Bldg - West (site-built) 5681 Hollister Ave. Youth services Civic 5,376 Subtotal 54,031
Parking Lot Orange Ave. Parking lot NA 0.15 - City Hall 130 Cremona Drive Offices Civic 2.46 40,049 Public Works Corporation Yard 6735 Hollister Ave. Utility 2.32 4,000 Land For Future Corporation Yard Hollister/Hwy 217 Future City Facility Utility 0.49 - Goleta Train Depot 27 S La Patera Lane Train Station/Transit Center Train Depot 2.48 9,000 Rancho La Patera & Stow House Note 1
Historic Train Depot 300 North Los Carneros Rd. Museum, offices Civic 5,000 Stow House 304 North Los Carneros Rd. Museum Civic 7,440 Caretaker's Residence 304 North Los Carneros Rd. Residence Civic 680 Garage 304 North Los Carneros Rd. Visitor center Civic 1,000 Bunk House 304 North Los Carneros Rd. Administrative office Civic 660 Packing Shed 304 North Los Carneros Rd. Museum Civic 3,180 Subtotal 17,960
Stow Grove Park Note 1
Caretaker's Residence & Garage 580 La Patera Lane Civic 1,200 Restroom Building 580 La Patera Lane Civic 200 Storage Shed 580 La Patera Lane Utility 600 Subtotal 2,000
All Facilities
Civic Buildings 110,470
Train Depot 9,000
Utility Buildings 7,570
Total 17.74 127,040
44 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 27 June 2026
1 Land included in parkland inventory.

Sources: City of Goleta Master Facilities List (City of Goleta GS Facilities Master List 01 -2025.xlsx); City of Goleta Owned Land Inventory (City_of_Goleta_Owned_Jan_2023.xlsx).
45 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 28
Table 3.2: Public Administration Facility Standard and Costs Facility Type
Existing
Facilities
Inventory
(sq. ft.)
Existing
Service
Pop-
ulation
Existing
Facility
Standard
(sq. ft.
per capita)
Average
Replace-
ment
Cost
(per sq. ft.)1
Total Cost
(per capita)
Formula a b c = a / b d e = c x d
Civic Buildings 110,470 37,525 2.94 $ 500 $ 1,470 Train Depot 9,000 37,525 0.24 2,444 587 Utility Buildings 7,570 37,525 0.20 300 60 Land2 772,624 37,525 20.59 62 1,277 Subtotal $ 3,394

Program Administration (5% of total) 179 Total $ 3,573
Note: Total cost per capita rounded to the nearest dollar. 1 Building replacement costs based on values used in similar studies for jurisdictions in California. Land cost based on City's recent land acquisition costs.
2 Acres from Table 3.1 converted to square feet based on 43,560 square feet per acre.

Sources: Urban Economics; Tables 2.4 and 3.1.

Table 3.3: Public Administration Facilities Impact Fee
Land Use Category
Cost
per
Capita
Occupant
Density
(Residents/D
U or
Workers/KSF)
Relative
Demand
Maximum
Justified
Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c d = a * b * c
e = d /
average
Residential
Single Family Detached2 $ 3,573 2.95 1.00 $ 10,540 per DU $5.88 All Other Residential 3,573 2.07 1.00 7,396 per DU 7.98 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial $ 3,573 2.33 0.20 $ 1,665 per KSF $1.67 Office & Medical 3,573 3.13 0.20 2,237 per KSF 2.24 Industrial 3,573 1.16 0.20 829 per KSF 0.83 Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023.
2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the prima ry dwelling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2.

46 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 29 June 2026

4. LIBRARY FACILITIES
This chapter provides the updated nexus analysis, fee schedule, and estimated revenue for the library facilities impact fee. Library facilities include the City’s single library , its collection of materials , and a book mobile.

Facility Standards
The library facilities impact fee uses the City’s existing capital asset s to determine the facility standard and provide a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional library facilities. The resulting impact fee would fund the expansion of library facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain the existing ratio of facilities to service population as growth occurs. See the Facility Standard section in Chapter 3 for more explanation of this approach.

The City’s existing capital asset inventory of library facilities is shown in Table 4.1. Note that the inventory only includes owned library facilities, and excludes the temporary GVL Express library at 6500 Hollister Avenue, Suite 105 because it is not owned by the City . The City is currently renovating its main library building at 500 North Fairview Ave.

Table 4.1: Existing Library Facilities
Facility Address
Building
Type Amount
Building 500 North Fairview Ave. Civic 15,773 square feet Materials 500 North Fairview Ave. 81,004 volumes1
Land 500 North Fairview Ave. 2.07 acres
Vehicles 1.00 book van
1 Includes books, audiobooks, DVDs, CDs, and library of things, hotspots, passes, magazines and book club kits.

Sources: City of Goleta Master Facilities List (City of Goleta GS Facilities Master List 01 - 2025.xlsx); City of Goleta Owned Land Inventory (City_of_Goleta_Owned_Jan_2023.xlsx).

The library facility standard and associated costs are shown in Table 4.2.

The assumed City service population is from Table 2.4. This figure has been adjusted in Table 4.2 to account for unincorporated service population served by the Goleta Valley Library. Per the FY 2025-26 Agreement for the Operation of a Countywide Library System, and the latest estimate of household population in Goleta from the California Department of Finance,

49.8% of demand for the Goleta Valley Library branch library services is associated with City residents and the remainder is associated with unincorporated residents. Consequently, the City's library ser vice 47 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 30
population is assumed to be 49.8% of the total service population in this for the purpose of calculating the existing facility standards, which results an assumed service population of 75,332 , which includes residents and a weighted estimate of workers.

Building and materials replacement costs are based on values used in similar studies for jurisdictions in California consistent with the sources used in the Public Administration fee analysis, and have been increased to reflect upgrades and renovations from the Building Forward Facilities Improvement Program infrastructure project. Assumed land values reflect recent land sales in and around the City. Total costs include a five percent charge for fee program administration.

As shown in the table, the City has an existing capital asset facility standard composed of 0.21 square feet of library space and 1.08 volumes per 1,000 capita, plus 1.20 square feet of land per capita . The t otal cost for new development to maintain this facility standard is $296 per capita including fee program administration costs.

Table 4.2: Library Facility Standards and Costs
Facility Type
Existing
Facilities
Inventory
(units)
Existing
Service
Pop-
ulation
Existing
Facility
Standard
(units per
capita)
Average
Replace-
ment
Cost
(per unit)1
Total Cost
(per capita)
Formula a b c = a / b d e = c x d
Building 15,773 sq. ft. 75,332 0.21 $ 800 $ 168 Materials 81,004 volumes 75,332 1.08 32 35 Land2 90,169 sq. ft. 75,332 1.20 62 74 Vehicles 1 book van 75,332 0.000013 300,000 4 Subtotal $ 281
Program Administration (5% of total) 15 Total $ 296
Note: Total cost per capita rounded to the nearest dollar. 1 Per Table 2.4 the existing City service population for library facilities is 37,525. This figure has been adjusted in this table to account for unincorporated service population served by the Goleta Valley Library. Per the FY 2025-26 Agreement for the Operation of a Countywide Library System, and the latest estimate of household population in Goleta from the CA Department of Finance, 49.8% of demand for the branch library services is associated with City residents and the remainder is associated with unincorporated residents. The City's library service population is assumed to be 49.8% of the total service population in this table for the purpose of calculating the existing facility standards.
2 Building and materials replacement costs based on values used in similar studies for jurisdictions in California.

Building replacement cost increased to reflect upgrades and renovation from Building Forward infrastructure project. Land cost based on City's recent land acquisition costs. 3 Acres from Table 4.1 converted to square feet based on 43,560 square feet per acre.

Sources: Table 1, FY 2025-2026 Agreement for Operation of a Countywide Library System; Urban Economics; Tables 2.4 and 4.1.
48 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 31 June 2026
Fee Schedule
The updated library facilities impact fee is shown in Table 4.3. The fee is based on the cost per capita shown in Table 4.2 necessary to maintain the City’s existing capital asset facility standard.

Table 4.3: Library Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use Category
Cost
per
Capita
Occupant
Density
(Residents/DU
or
Workers/KSF)
Relative
Demand
Maximum
Justified
Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c d = a * b * c
e = d /
average
Residential
Single Family Detached2 $ 296 2.95 1.00 $ 873 per DU $0.49 All Other Residential 296 2.07 1.00 613 per DU 0.66 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial $ 296 2.33 0.20 $ 138 per KSF $0.14 Office & Medical 296 3.13 0.20 185 per KSF 0.19 Industrial 296 1.16 0.20 69 per KSF 0.07 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023. 2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, and 4.2.

Use of Fee Revenue
Estimated fee revenue over the next five -year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s CIP through buildout based on a market - based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existi ng level of service. Table 9.3 displays the Nexus Study CIP for library facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP will 49 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 32
be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that benefit new development.

The City may use library facilities impact fee revenue to fund any capital project, or to purchase equipment or volumes, that expands the capacity of the City’s library facilities. Examples include additional collections, a bookmobile or expanded building space.

Capital projects that address changing service demands , such as the reconfiguration of existing library space, as opposed to increasing service demands, benefit both existing and new development. Therefore, impact fee revenue for these types of projects must be combined with other funding sources so that new development only pays for a fair share of total capital costs. City service population from growth is forecast to be 2 1 percent of total service population at buildout (see Table 2.4), so the share of costs for joint benefit projects funded with the impact fee should be limited to 2 1 percent.

50 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 33 June 2026

5. PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
This chapter provides the updated nexus analysis, fee schedule, and estimated revenue for the park and recreation facilities impact fee. Park and recreation facilities include the City’s developed and undeveloped parks plus the City’s open space. The City also has a parkland dedication in -lieu fee that is governed by Government Code section 66477, also known as the Quimby Act. This chapter also explains the relationship between the impact fee and the Quimby in-lieu fee.

Facility Standards
This section explains both the existing capital asset facility standard and the Quimby Act standard for park facilities. These standards are both based on the City’s existing inventory of improved parklands, unimproved parklands, and open space as shown in Table 5.1.

Existing Capital Asset Standard
The park and recreation facilities impact fee uses the City’s existing capital assets to determine the facility standard and provide a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional park facilities. The resulting impact fee would fund the expansion of park facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain the existing ratio of facilities to service population as growth occurs. See the Facility Standard section in Chapter 3 for more explanation of this approach.

This fee program update calculates three components that combined represent the City’s existing parkland standard:
 Improved parkland per capita
 Total parkland (improved and unimproved) per capita
 Open space per capita.

51 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 34
Table 5.1: Park Inventory (acres)
Park Unimproved Improved
Total
Parkland
Open
Space
Total
Acres

Andamar - 2.45 2.45 - 2.45 Armitos Park - 1.48 1.48 - 1.48 Armstrong - 0.46 0.46 - 0.46 Bella Vista I & II - 3.50 3.50 - 3.50 Bella Vista III 0.77 - 0.77 - 0.77 Berkeley Park - 4.20 4.20 - 4.20 Brandon 2.22 - 2.22 - 2.22 Campus Glen 6.31 - 6.31 - 6.31 Evergreen Acres - 28.72 28.72 - 28.72 Glen Annie at Del Norte 0.99 - 0.99 - 0.99 Jonny D. Wallis Neighborhood Park - 3.98 3.98 - 3.98 Koarts Apartments 6.60 - 6.60 - 6.60 La Goleta 6.13 - 6.13 - 6.13 Lake Los Carneros Natural and
Historical Preserve (Including Stow
House)
- 5.53 5.53 134.46 139.99
Mathilda - 0.20 0.20 - 0.20 Nectarine - 0.13 0.13 - 0.13 Oro Verde 7.35 - 7.35 - 7.35 San Jose Creek 4.87 - 4.87 - 4.87 San Miguel - 2.71 2.71 - 2.71 San Miguel Open Space 3.07 - 3.07 - 3.07 Santa Barbara Shores (Small) 4.83 - 4.83 - 4.83 Santa Barbara Shores Open Space
(Small) 1.24 - 1.24 - 1.24 Santa Barbara Shores Park - - - 98.62 98.62 Sperling Preserve - - - 137.65 137.65 Stonebridge 3.41 - 3.41 - 3.41 Stow Grove Park1 11.10 - 11.10 - 11.10 Stow Tennis Courts - 2.68 2.68 - 2.68 University Village - 3.16 3.16 - 3.16 Winchester I 2.22 1.14 3.36 - 3.36
Winchester II - 1.20 1.20 - 1.20 Total 61.11

61.54 122.65

370.73

493.38

1 Stow Grove park is currently improved, however the City is planning to completely rehabilitate the park. Park acres for this park are listed as unimproved to reflect need for rehabilitation.

Sources: Table 3-1, Draft Open Space Element Update; City of Goleta Owned Land Inventory (City_of_Goleta_Owned_Jan_2023.xlsx).
52 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 35 June 2026
Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act 8 allows local agencies to require certain residential projects to dedicate parkland or pay a fee in lieu of dedication. Compared to impact fees adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Quimby Act land dedication and in-lieu fees:
 Can only apply to residential projects that require a tentative or parcel map (typically any type of subdivision)
 Cannot be based on a service population that includes workers and therefore Quimby fees cannot apply to nonresidential development  Cannot include park development costs
 Cannot include open space.

The Quimby Act allows a local agency to require dedication of three to five acres of unimproved parkland per 1,000 residents based on the development project’s estimated residential population. A local agency may require a minimum of three acres of unimproved parkland per 1,000 residents regardless of the agency’s existing parkland standard. This standard is the ratio of existing improved and unimproved neighborhood and community parkland to existing residents as of the last Federal Census and excludes open space.

The agency may require dedication of up to five acres of unimproved parkland per 1,000 residents if the existing parkland standard supports that higher level. The agency may not require dedication at a standard greater than five acres per 1,000 residents regardless of the agency’s existing parkland standard.

The local agency may allow payment of a fee in lieu of parkland dedication based on the cost of land acquisition but not the cost of park development.

This in-lieu fee is exempt from the Mitigation Fee Act .9 The Act contains no language that prohibits an agency from adopting an impact fee to fund park development costs and open space acquisition, in addition to the Quimby dedication requirement or in-lieu fee. Thus, the agency may adopt both approaches to ensure that the combined requirements address all development impacts.

8 Government Code, section 66477.
9 Ibid., sections 66000(b)
53 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 36
Summary
The p arkland standards applicable to the Mitigation Fee Act and the Quimby Act are shown in Table 5.2. Service population is from Table 2.4.

Service population includes residents and workers for the Mitigation Fee Act standard but only residents for the Quimby Act standard.

As shown in the table, the City has an existing parkland standard under the Mitigation Fee Act composed of 1. 64 acres of improved parkland, 3. 27 acres of total parkland, and 9.88 acres of open space per 1,000 capita.

The Quimby Act standard based only on existing residents as of the last Federal Census and parkland is 3.75 acres per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act standard is slightly higher than the comparable Mitigation Fee Act standard (3.75 versus 3.27 acres) for total parkland because the former is based on only residents and does not include workers. This approach results in a higher ratio of acres per capita. Because this standard is between the minimum and maximum Quimby Act standards (three to five acres per 1,000 residents), this standard is the maximum amount that the City can require in parkland dedication.

Table 5.2: Park Facility Standards
Facility Type
Existing
Facilities
Inventory
(units)
Existing
Service
Pop-
ulation1
Existing Facility Standard

Formula a b c = a / (b / 1,000)
Mitigation Fee Act Park Facilities Standard
Improved Parkland 61.54 acres 37,525 1.64 acres / 1,000 capita Total Parkland 122.65 acres 37,525 3.27 acres / 1,000 capita Open Space 370.73 acres 37,525 9.88 acres / 1,000 capita Quimby Act Parkland Dedication Standard
Total Parkland 122.65 acres 32,690 3.75 acres / 1,000 capita 1 Service population is based on residents and workers for the Mitigation Fee Act standard. Residents as of last Federal Census in 2020 used to calculated Quimby Act standard.

Sources: Tables 2.4 and 5.1.

Park facility costs based on the facility standards in Table 5.2 are shown in Table 5.3. Land costs reflect a conservative estimate of $2,695,000 per acre for acquisition based on the City’s 2018 cost to acquire the Goleta Train Depot. This cost is used to be conservative because it is significantly less than the average cost incurred by the C ity to acquire right of way recently ($62 per square foot, compared to the average cost of $133 per square foot across five recent acquisitions) . The assumed p ark improvement cost per acre is based on the City’s budgeted cost to rehabilitate Stow Grove Park 54 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 37 June 2026
from the City’s most recent CIP. Table 5.3 has two sections, depending on whether the project is subject to the Quimby Act:
 The “All Development Except Residential Subdivisions” section shows costs for development projects that would not be subject to the Quimby Act. Costs components include: (1) improved parkland (park development costs only excluding land acquisition) , (2) total parkland (land acquisition costs only), and (3) open space (land acquisition costs only).
 The “Residential Subdivision” section shows costs for development projects that would be subject to the Quimby Act . Cost components include: (1) a Quimby park dedication in -lieu fee based on parkland acquisition, (2) an impact fee based on park improvements and open space acquisition.
 All fees include five percent for fee program administration.

55 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 38
Table 5.3: Existing Capital Asset Park Facility Standards Facility Type
Existing
Facility
Standard
(acres per
1,000 capita)
Average
Replace-
ment
Cost
(per unit)1
Total Cost
(per capita)
Formula a b
c = a x b /
1,000
All Development Except Residential Subdivisions
Park Facilities Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Improved Parkland 1.64 $ 919,000 $ 1,507 Total Parkland 3.27 2,695,100 8,813 Open Space 9.88 27,600 273 Subtotal $ 10,593
Program Administration (5% of total) 558 Total $ 11,151
Residential Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee (Quimby Act)
Total Parkland 3.75 $ 2,695,100 $ 10,107 Program Administration (5% of total) 532 Subtotal $ 10,639
Park Facilities Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Improved Parkland 1.64 919,000 1,507 Open Space 9.88 27,600 273 Subtotal $ 1,780
Program Administration (5% of total) 94 Subtotal $ 1,874
Total $ 12,513
Note: Total cost per capita rounded to the nearest dollar. 1 Land cost based on City's recent land acquisition costs. Park development costs based on cost per acre to renovate Stow Grove Park from the City's current CIP (Project No. 9074).

Sources: City of Goleta CIP; Urban Economics; Table 5.2.

The total cost for new development to maintain the existing parkland standard is $11,151 per capita if the project is not a residential subdivision subject to the Quimby Act. The total cost is $12,513 if the project is subject to the Quimby Act. The higher per capita cost for projects subject to the Quimby Act is due to the higher standard for parkland acquisition, as described above.

Fee Schedule
The updated park and recreation facilities impact fee and Quimby Act in - lieu fee are shown in Table 5.4. The fees are based on the costs per capita shown in Table 5.3 necessary to maintain the City’s existing park standards. 56 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 39 June 2026
Fees adopted at this level would allow the City to provide parks to new development at the same ratio of facilities to service population that currently exists in the City of Goleta today. As a policy decision, the City can adopt any fee lower than the max imum justified amounts. However, should the City elect to adopt fees below the maximum amounts, the lost revenue required to construct the facilities must come from the City's general fund or other unrestricted revenue source. The City cannot impose higher fees on other applicants in the future to make up the lost revenue.

Table 5.4: Park & Recreation Facilities Impact and Park Dedication In-lieu Fees Land Use Category
Cost
per
Capita
Occupant
Density
(Residents/DU
or
Workers/KSF)
Relative
Demand
Maximum
Justified
Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c d = a * b * c
e = d /
average
All Development Except Residential Subdivisions (Mitigation Fee Act) Residential
Single Family Detached2 $11,151 2.95 1.00 $ 32,895 per DU $ 18.37 All Other Residential 11,151 2.07 1.00 23,083 per DU 24.90 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial $11,151 2.33 0.20 5,196 per KSF $ 5.20 Office & Medical 11,151 3.13 0.20 6,981 per KSF 6.98 Industrial 11,151 1.16 0.20 2,587 per KSF 2.59 Residential Subdivisions
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee (Quimby Act)
Single Family Detached2 $10,639 2.95 1.00 $ 31,385 per DU $17.52 All Other Residential 10,639 2.07 1.00 22,023 per DU 23.76 Park Development & Open Space Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Single Family Detached2 $ 1,874 2.95 1.00 $ 5,528 per DU $ 3.09 All Other Residential 1,874 2.07 1.00 3,879 per DU 4.18 Total Fee
Single Family Detached $12,513 2.95 1.00 $ 36,913 per DU $ 20.61 All Other Residential 12,513 2.07 1.00 25,902 per DU 27.94 Note: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023.
2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwel ling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, and 5.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
Estimated fee revenue over the next five -year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s CIP through buildout based on a market - based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program 57 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 40
Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. This estimate assumes that all projects are subject to the Mitigation Fee Act only and would not pay a Quimby in-lieu fee. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existing level of service. Table 9.4 displays the Nexus Study CIP for parks and recreation facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP will be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that benefit new development.

The City may use park and recreation facilities impact fee revenue for any capital project that expands the capacity of the City’s park facilities . If revenue is used to replace an existing facility without expanding capacity, the project provides a joint benefit to existing and new development. In this case then the fee can fund only 2 1 percent of project costs based on new development as a share of total development at buildout (see Table 2.4).

The City is largely built out and there are limited opportunities to acquire additional parkland. Therefore, the City anticipates using fee revenue to further develop existing parks with expanded, improved, or enhanced recreational facilities and infrastructure. Refer to the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program for the anticipated use of fee revenue to fund capital projects within the next five years.

The City must also allocate five percent of fee revenue to program administration. Administration costs include costs to collect and account for fee revenue, and costs to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act such as annual and five -year reporting requirements. The Quimby Act does not have analogous reporting requirements, although the fee revenue must be spent appropriately. The City will monitor its actual program administration costs and adjust this charge accordingly when the impact fee is updated in the future.
58 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 41 June 2026

6. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This chapter prov ides the updated nexus analysis, fee schedule , and estimated revenue for the transportation impact fee. Transportation facilities include roadways, intersections, and transit infrastructure. Improvements specifically targeted to accommodate increased bicycle and pedestrian travel from new development are addressed in the following chapter.

Determining the impact of development on the need for expanded transportation facilities required a sophisticated technical analysis. That analysis is described in this chapter and supported by attachments to this report.

Transportation Demand Modeling
Planning for transportation improvements is typically addressed with the use of a travel demand modeling coupled with operational determinations.

Travel demand models estimate the effect of land use on the generation of vehicle trips and how those trips di stribute across the transportation network. The Goleta Travel Model used in the City’s prior Public Facilities Impact Fee Program was updated in 2025 for use in this nexus analysis. The model encompasses 192 traffic analysis zones that aggregate the underlying land use based on 28 land use categories. The model covers an area that includes the City and surrounding portions of the Goleta Valley to analyze impacts on the City’s transportation system from growth both in and around the City. The model is a single -mode (auto trips only) model and analyzes both morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) peak -period travel. Based on the City’s General Plan buildout growth scenario described in Chapter 2, along with surrounding regional growth, the Goleta Travel Model is app lied to generate future year AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes that are then input into various planning - and/or engineering -based operational tools to determine the operating characteristics of a given roadway or intersection.

Based on these analyses, opera tional deficiencies are identified relative to the City’s General Plan standards/thresholds as described below.

Local Transportation Deficiency Criteria
The City of Goleta defines transportation deficiency criteria through the City General Plan Circulation Element. The primary policies of concern for this study are Transportation Element (TE) 4, which defines target level of 59 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 42
service (LOS) standards, TE 5, which defines planned street and road improvements, and TE 13, which defines traffic impacts for new developments. From these policies, the City defines a traffic impact as any project which causes an intersection on a major arterial, min or arterial, or collector roadway to degrade below a LOS C except at the intersection of Storke Road and Hollister Avenue where an LOS D standard will be maintained. Projects are required to evaluate the creation of safety hazards, potential adverse effects on local neighborhood streets, and other substantial transportation concerns.

Projects to be funded by the fee program met at least one of the following criteria. In any event, the use of development impact fee revenue will be used only to (1) refurbish existing facilities in order to maintain existing LOS or (2) achieve an adopted LOS that is consistent with the City's General Plan.
• The project is needed to mitigate a future deficiency, or the worsening of an existing deficiency at a signalized intersection. Due to new development’s contribution to a LOS failure, channelization is provided to allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS. • The project is needed to add capacity to accommodate new development by improving a non-signalized intersection into either a signalized intersection or roundabout. These projects are identified by either a projected decrease in the LOS, or signal warrant conditions.
• The project is needed to mitigate queue spillback caused by additional trips generated by new development. Queue spillback refers to a traffic condition in which a queue of vehicles formed at a congested signalized intersection, extends backwards far enough to block the upstream intersection.
• The project is needed on a major arterial, minor arterial, or collector roadway to add capacity to accommodate new development by providing additional travel lanes, as identified under the Highway Capacity Manual approach, or if the segment exceeds General Plan average daily trip (ADT) thresholds.
• The project is needed to mitigate a future deficiency, or the worsening of an existing deficiency on a State owned and operated freeway facility (i.e., US 101 or SR 217). Due to new development’s contribution to a level of service (LOS) failure, additional travel lane (aux-lane, general purpose lane, managed lane) is provided to allow the freeway to operate at an acceptable LOS. Given that these are not City-owned facilities, the City applies an LOS Standard of D 60 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 43 June 2026
(standard used for applicable Congestion Management Programs statewide).

The results of the deficiency assessment and project identification serve to update the list of improvements described in the City’s Development Impact Fee capital improvement list and the Transportation Element of 2006 Goleta General Plan.

Facility Standards
The travel model used facility standards to determine where transportation improvements are needed within the city (1) to correct existing deficiencies, and (2) address future deficiencies cause by new development. The cost to correct existing deficiencies cannot be funded with impact fee revenue and is excluded from the fee calculations. Facility standards for transportation analysis are based on policies in the Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan.10 The City’s primary policy for roadways and intersections is to maintain a level of service (LOS) “C” or better, representing restricted traffic flow that remains stable but without causing significant delay. In this instance LOS is a commonly used measure of congestion and delay based on the ratio of the number of vehicles using a roadway to the capacity of the roadway (vehicle -to-capacity ratio). The LOS policy for intersections is similar though the type of analysis varies. Certain roadways and intersections require d more specialized analysis of their operation (operational analysis) to determine if a deficiency exists.

Capital Improvements and Fair Share Analysis
The results of the travel model and related transportation impact analysis generated a list of 32 capital improvement projects to address existing and future deficiencies on the City’s transportation system.

Next, a fair share analysis was conducted so that the impact fee will fund only the portion of those improvements that are associated with growth within the City. The analysis uses model output to quantify the number of trips using each improvement and the origin and destination of those trips.

The fair share analysis allocated the need for each improvement across three categories that summed to 100 percent:

1. Existing deficiency

10 City of Goleta, Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan , Transportation Element, September 2006, pp. 7-16 to 7-17.
61 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 44

2. New development outside Goleta

3. New development inside Goleta
Finally, cost estimates for each improvement were developed. The total cost for all 32 projects is $439.5 million.

Combining the fair share analysis with the improvement cost estimates resulted in a total cost to accommodate the impacts of new development within the City on the City’s transportation system. See Table 6.1 for a summary of these results for each improvement. As shown in the table, new development within the city is responsible for 42.1 percent of total project costs, or $185 million.

Note that project costs for R-13, I-01, I-12-02, I-12-02 (I4), I-12-05, I-12- 06, I -12-07, I -12-10, I -12-11, I -12-12, I -12-35 and I -12-36 represent the average cost between a traffic signal and a roundabout for each location, and are noted as “average” in the Intersection Control column of Table 6.1.

Average costs are used due to the uncertainty as to which type of intersection control will ultimately be built so that costs are not overstated in this fee analysis. The specific intersection control for each project will be determined during the project’s design phase based on operational, safety, and site-specific considerations.
62 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 45 June 2026
Table 6.1: Transportation Improvements and Costs
Total Existing
Deficiency Total Growth2 Goleta Growth
Map ID Project Location
Cost
($1,000s)1
Intersection
Control Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s)
Existing Roadways
R-02
Hollister Avenue Complete
Streets Corridor Plan 10,750 Signal 70% 7,510 30% 3,240 47.52% 1,540 R-10
US 101 NB Aux Lane Between
Los Carneros Road and Storke
Road 22,650 n/a 90% 20,401 10% 2,249 25.11% 565 R-11
US 101 NB/SB Aux Lanes
Between Fairview Avenue and
Los Carneros Road 33,500 n/a 0% - 100% 33,500 61.01% 20,439 R-12
Storke Road Widening: Phelps
Road to City Limits 6,000 n/a 65% 3,883 35% 2,117 44.92% 951 R-13 Los Carneros Way Realignment 23,550 Average 0% - 100% 23,550 73.25% 17,250 R-14 South Fairview Avenue Widening 6,200 n/a 0% - 100% 6,200 46.72% 2,897 Subtotal 102,650 31% 31,794 69% 70,856 42.51% 43,641 Existing Intersections
I-01
Fairview Avenue/Calle Real
Intersection Improvements 23,875 Average 0% - 100% 23,875 68.19% 16,280 I-02
Fairview Avenue at US101 SB
On-Ramp Improvements 28,800 n/a 71% 20,360 29% 8,440 53.88% 4,547 I-07
Hollister Widening - West of
Storke Road 3,620 n/a 0% - 100% 3,620 62.47% 2,261 I-08
Patterson Avenue at US101 SB
Ramp Improvements 44,450 Signal 75% 33,469 25% 10,981 37.16% 4,081 I-10
Hollister Avenue at Patterson
Avenue 3,600 n/a 0% - 100% 3,600 35.40% 1,275 1 Project costs for projects R-13, I-01, I-12-02, I-12-02 (I4), I-12-05, I-12-06, I-12-07, I-12-10, I-12-11, I-12-12, I-12-35 and I-12-36 represent the average cost between a traffic signal and a roundabout for each location. Average costs are used due to the uncertainty as to which t ype of intersection control will ultimately be built so that costs are not overstated in this fee analysis.
2 Total growth share includes Goleta growth share and excludes existing deficiency share.

Sources: Appendix A and Appendix B.
63 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 46

Table 6.1: Transportation Improvements and Costs Continued Total Existing
Deficiency Total Growth2 Goleta Growth
Map ID Project Location
Cost
($1,000s)1
Intersection
Control Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s)
I-12-02
New Intersection Control - Calle Real /
Carlo Drive 4,980 Average 74% 3,665 26% 1,315 67.89% 893 I-12-02 (I4)
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks Road / Hollister Avenue / US
101 NB Ramps 5,640 Average 0% - 100% 5,640 84.10% 4,743 I-12-05
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks Road / Los Carneros Road 6,555 Average 0% - 100% 6,555 56.78% 3,722 I-12-06
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks Road / N La Patera Lane 7,205 Average 66% 4,762 34% 2,443 57.22% 1,398 I-12-07
New Intersection Control - Fairview
Avenue / Stow Canyon Road 7,015 Average 77% 5,398 23% 1,617 76.55% 1,238 I-12-10
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Cannon Green Drive 5,925 Average 79% 4,690 21% 1,235 87.80% 1,084 I-12-11
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Pebble Beach Drive 8,015 Average 0% - 100% 8,015 87.53% 7,016 I-12-12
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Sumida Gardens Lane 6,425 Average 0% - 100% 6,425 25.79% 1,657 I-12-23
New Intersection Control - Carlo Drive
/ Cathedral Oaks Road 8,050

Roundabout 63% 5,107 37% 2,943 58.12% 1,710 I-12-27
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks / 101 SB-Ramp 34,000

Roundabout 67% 22,842 33% 11,158 81.01% 9,039 I-12-30
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Palo Alto Drive 10,200

Roundabout 0% - 100% 10,200 89.08% 9,086 1 Project costs for projects R-13, I-01, I-12-02, I-12-02 (I4), I-12-05, I-12-06, I-12-07, I-12-10, I-12-11, I-12-12, I-12-35 and I-12-36 represent the average cost between a traffic signal and a roundabout for each location. Average costs are used due to t he uncertainty as to which type of intersection control will ultimately be built so that costs are not overstated in this fee analysis.
2 Total growth share includes Goleta growth share and excludes existing deficiency share.

Sources: Appendix A and Appendix B.

64 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 47 June 2026
Table 6.1: Transportation Improvements and Costs Continued Total Existing Deficiency Total Growth2 Goleta Growth Map ID Project Location
Cost
($1,000s)1
Intersection
Control Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s) Share
Cost
($1,000s)
I-12-31
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Santa Felicia Drive 2,180 Signal 78% 1,696 22% 484 84.31% 408 I-12-32
New Intersection Control - Storke
Avenue / Santa Felicia Drive 270 n/a 78% 211 22% 59 50.15% 30 I-12-33
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Cathedral Oaks Avenue 9,250

Roundabout 0% - 100% 9,250 88.52% 8,189 I-12-34
New Intersection Control - Hollister
Avenue / Cortona Drive 1,700 Signal 66% 1,115 34% 585 73.87% 432 I-12-35
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks Avenue / Glen Annie Road 5,900 Average 0% - 100% 5,900 27.23% 1,607 I-12-36
New Intersection Control - Cathedral
Oaks Avenue / Alameda Avenue 5,985 Average 0% - 100% 5,985 30.16% 1,805 I-18 Storke Road at US101 SB Ramps 22,400 Signal 81% 18,140 19% 4,260 50.09% 2,134 I-22
Hollister Avenue / Fairview Avenue
Intersection Improvements 15,850

Roundabout 0% - 100% 15,850 52.91% 8,386 Subtotal 271,890 45% 121,454 55% 150,436 34.21% 93,020 New
Roadways
R-05
Goleta US 101 Bike/Ped
Overcrossing3 46,150 n/a 0% - 100% 46,150 85.05% 39,252 R-09 Phelps Road Extension 18,800 n/a 0% - 100% 18,800 48.41% 9,100 Subtotal 64,950 0% - 100% 64,950 74.45% 48,352 Total 439,490 35% 153,249 65% 286,241 42.10% 185,014 1 Project costs for projects R-13, I-01, I-12-02, I-12-02 (I4), I-12-05, I-12-06, I-12-07, I-12-10, I-12-11, I-12-12, I-12-35 and I-12-36 represent the average cost between a traffic signal and a roundabout for each location. Average costs are used due to t he uncertainty as to which type of intersection control will ultimately be built so that costs are not overstated in this fee analysis. 2 Total growth share includes Goleta growth share and excludes existing deficiency share. 3 This project relieves congestion necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS for an adjacent intersection. Given that the project is solely dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian uses, and because there is a separate fee for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, hal f of the project costs are included here, and half of the costs can be funded by the bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee.

Sources: Appendix A and Appendix B.

65 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 48
See Appendix A: Traffic Needs Analysis provided under separate cover for more detail on the travel forecast, deficiency assessment, and fair share analysis. See Appendix B: Transportation Improvement Project Cost Estimates provided under separate cover for more detail on the cost estimation work conducted for each improvement. Appendix A and B are on file with the City and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Fee Schedule
The transportation impact fee schedule is based on (1) trip generation rates, (2) total trips from new development, and (3) the overall cost per new trip associated with the improvements in Table 6.1 . The methodology is explained in the sections that follow.

Trip Generation Rates
Demand for traffic facilities is based on vehicle trip generation rates. Trip rates measure the rate at which trips occur, either an origin or a destination (known as a “trip end”) , from a specific type of land use. Thus, trip generation rates distribute the impact of growth equally between both ends of a trip.

Vehicle trip rates are based on the evening peak hour because this period generates the greatest demand on the roadway system. The use of evening peak hour trip rates for the fee calculation is consistent with the approach taken by the travel modeling and described above.

The transportation impact fee schedule is based on a “cost per trip” that represents the total improvement cost allocated to new development divided by total trips estimated to be generated by new development. The formula is:

Cost per trip =
Total improvement costs allocated to new development (see Table 6.1) Total trips (across all land use categories)

The formula for calculating trips from a given land use category is shown below:

Trips for land use category =
Land use category growth (in units) x
Land use category trip rate (per unit)
66 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 49 June 2026
Total trips are calculated by totaling trips generated across all land use categories in the growth forecast.

Growth by land use category is expressed in dwelling unit s or 1,000 building square feet. Trip rates are expressed per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.

To calculate the fee on a development project, the appropriate land use category and related trip generation rate are identified from the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The manual includes estimated trip rates for over 100 land use categories. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip rate applicable to the development project and by the size of the development project to calculate the fee for that project, or:

Development project with land use category fee =
Cost per trip x Trip rate for land use category (per unit) x Project size (in units)
Note that trip rates by land use category are used both in (1) calculation of total trips used to calculate the cost per trip, and (2) application of the fee to individual development projects. To ensure that the fee program generates total revenue equal to the cost of improvements allocated to new development, both calculations must use a consistent set of trip generation rates.

As shown in Chapter 2 (see Table 2.1) the growth forecast for this study and the travel model includes 28 land use categories. To maintain consistency between the calculation of total trips based on the growth forecast, and the ITE rates used to calculate individual project fees, growth in each of the forecast’s 28 categories is allocated to the more detailed categories used by ITE. This effort ensures that the calculation of total trips from growth, and therefore the cost per trip used in the fee schedule, is as consistent as possible with the trip rates used to calculate the fee on each development project.

Table 6.2 shows how trip generation rates were developed for each of the growth forecast’s land use categories based on ITE rates. For each category, we estimated the amount of growth in land use sub -categories consistent with the ITE rates and calculated a weighted average trip rate for each category.

67 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 50
Table 6.2: Vehicle Trip Rates
Travel Demand Model
Land Use Category
ITE Trip Generation Manual P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate
Code Land Use Unit ITE Weight1 Average
Single Family Detached 210 Single Family Detached DU 0.93 100% 0.93 All Other Residential 220 Multifamily Housing (Low
Rise)
DU

0.52 36%

215 Single Family Attached DU 0.51 53%
252 Senior Housing -
Multifamily
DU

0.25 5%

255 Continuing Care DU 0.19 5%
Weighted Average 100% 0.48
Auto Services 843 Automobile Parts Sales KSF 4.86 100% 4.86 Banks 911 Walk-In Bank KSF 12.13 100% 12.13
Fast Food Restaurants [No growth forecast]
Hotel 310 Hotel room 0.47 50%
320 Motel room 0.37 50%
Weighted Average 100% 0.42
Indoor Recreation 492 Health / Fitness Club KSF 3.77 50% 493 Athletic Club KSF 3.38 50%
Weighted Average 100% 3.58
Shopping Mall [No growth forecast]
Neighborhood
Commercial
814 Variety Store KSF 6.70 6%
816 Hardware / Paint Store KSF 2.98 0%
817 Nursery / Garden Center KSF 6.58 1%
850 Supermarket KSF 8.79 55%
861 Sporting Goods Superstore KSF 2.09 1%
863 Electronic Superstore KSF 4.25 1%
875 Department Store KSF 1.95 0%
876 Apparel Store KSF 5.77 10%
880 Pharmacy / Drugstore KSF 8.51 15%
890 Furniture Store KSF 0.57 3%
975 Drinking Place KSF 6.44 7%
Weighted Average 100% 7.75
Regional Commercial 814 Variety Store KSF 6.70 6%
816 Hardware / Paint Store KSF 2.98 7%
817 Nursery / Garden Center KSF 6.58 1%
850 Supermarket KSF 8.79 15%
861 Sporting Goods Superstore KSF 2.09 3%
863 Electronic Superstore KSF 4.25 6%
875 Department Store KSF 1.95 32%
876 Apparel Store KSF 5.77 12%
880 Pharmacy / Drugstore KSF 8.51 4%
890 Furniture Store KSF 0.57 11%
925 Drinking Place KSF 6.44 2%
Weighted Average 100% 4.18
68 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 51 June 2026
Table 6.2: Vehicle Trip Rates (continued)
Travel Demand
Model
Land Use
Category
ITE Trip Generation Manual P.M. Peak Hour Trip Rate
Code Land Use Unit ITE Weight1 Average
Resort Hotel 330 Resort Hotel KSF 0.39 100% 0.39 Restaurants 931 Fine Dining Restaurant KSF 8.10 25% 932 High-turnover (sit-down) KSF 9.18 75%
Weighted Average 100% 8.91
Theater 445 Movie Theater KSF 4.91 100% 4.91 Hospitals 610 Hospital KSF 0.86 100% 0.86 Medical 630 Clinic KSF 3.67 50%
720 Medical-Dental Office KSF 3.42 50%
Weighted Average 100% 3.55
Office 710 General Office KSF 1.18 50%
770 Business Park KSF 0.79 50%
Weighted Average 100% 0.99
Heavy Industrial 130 Industrial Park KSF 0.23 100% 0.23 Light Industrial 110 General Light Industrial KSF 0.49 100% 0.49 Research &
Development
760 Research &
Development Center
KSF 0.45 100% 0.45
Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. 1 Weight reflects estimated share of new development by land use category. All Other Residential estimates from Goleta fiscal impact study (see sources). Commercial land use estimates based on Easton and Owen (see sources). Other estimates reflect current land use allocations within the City and input from City staff.

Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 12th Edition, 2025; Economics Research Associates, A Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed General Plan for the City of Goleta , Sept. 7, 2006, Table II-1; Gregory Easton and John Owen, Creating Walkable Neighborhood Business Districts , June 2009, Table 2.

Total Trips from Growth
Total trips from growth are based on the trip generation rates in Table 6.2 and the growth forecast from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. Vehicle trip rates are adjusted to exclude pass-by trips, which differ by land use category . Pass- by trips reflect trip ends that are intermediate stops between an origin and destination and therefore place additional demand on the roadway network.

Pass-by rates are based on surveys conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and provide sufficient detail by lan d use category. The SANDAG data is used because it identifies pass -by and trip length assumptions by land use category. The same adjustment to remove pass-by trips from the fee calculation will be used when applying the fee to individual development projects to maintain the necessary consistency discussed above. New development in Goleta is estimated to generate 8,844 P.M. peak hour trips at buildout, as shown in Table 6.3.

69 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 52
Table 6.3: New Development Vehicle Trip Generation

Growth
(2025-Buildout)1
P.M. Peak Hour Trip
Rate
Primary
P.M.

Peak
Hour
Trips Share
Travel Demand Model
Land Use Category Amount Units
Total
Trips
Pass-
by
Trip
Share
Primary/
Diverted
Trip
Rate
Single Family Detached 978 DU 0.93 3% 0.90 880 10% All Other Residential 2,351 DU 0.48 3% 0.47 1,105 12% Auto Services1 75 KSF 4.86 10% 4.37 328 4% Banks1 5 KSF 12.13 25% 9.10 46 1% Fast Food Restaurants1 - KSF NA 40% NA NA NA Hotels 454 rooms 0.42 4% 0.40 182 2% Indoor Recreation 114 KSF 3.58 9% 3.26 372 4% Shopping Mall - KSF NA NA NA NA NA
Neighborhood Commercial1 636 KSF 7.75 40% 4.65 2,957 33% Regional Commercial1 37 KSF 4.18 20% 3.34 124 1% Resort Hotel 48 KSF 0.39 4% 0.37 18 0% Restaurants1 34 KSF 8.91 20% 7.13 242 3% Theater 65 KSF 4.91 17% 4.08 265 3% Hospitals 60 KSF 0.86 2% 0.84 50 1% Medical 75 KSF 3.55 10% 3.20 240 3% Office 1,736 KSF 0.99 4% 0.95 1,649 19% Heavy Industrial 144 KSF 0.23 3% 0.22 32 0% Light Industrial 678 KSF 0.49 2% 0.48 325 4% Research & Development 66 KSF 0.45 2% 0.44 29 0% Total Trips 8,844 100%
Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. 1 Used specific rates for p.m. peak hour noted in footnote (S) of SANDAG (see sources). For Auto Services used SANDAG rate for Special Retail/Strip Commercial (other) category. For Restaurants used SANDAG rate for Sit Down/High Turnover Restaurant category.

Source: San Diego Association of Governments, (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation Rates For The San Diego Region, April 2002; Tables 2.1 and 6.2.

Cost per Trip
The cost per trip used to apply the fee to individual development projects is based on the total costs of capital improvements allocated to growth ($191.9 million) from Table 6.1, and total trips from growth (8,844) shown in Table

6.3. Total costs are reduced by the City’s existing transportation impact fee fund balance. In addition, five percent is added to the net cost for fee program administration. The total cost per trip is $21,866 as shown in Table

6.4. 70
Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 53 June 2026
Table 6.4: Transportation Fee Cost per Trip

Transportation Improvement Cost: Goleta Growth Share ($1,000s) $185,014 Estimated Impact Fee Fund Balance (June 30, 2025) 1,296 Net Goleta Growth Share $183,718
Program Administration (5% of total) 9,669
Total GTIF Program Cost $193,387
P.M. Peak Hour Trips from Growth, (2025 to Buildout) 8,844 Proposed Fee per P.M. Peak Hour Trip $ 21,866
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3.

Smart Growth and VMT Efficient Housing Discounts
As described above, the fee for each development project will be calculated by multiplying the cost per trip from Table 6.4 by the applicable ITE trip generation rate adjusted by the applicable SANDAG pass-by rate. Fees for a sample of land use categories are shown in Table 6.5.

Housing development projects that meet certain smart growth or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) efficient criteria must be charged a lower impact fee to reflect lower levels of demand for transportation facilities.11 The Smart Growth criteria are:

1. The housing development is located within a transit priority area and the major transit stop, if planned, is programmed to be completed before or within one year from the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development.

2. The housing development is located within one-half mile from three or more of the following:
a. A supermarket or grocery store.
b. A public park.
c. A community center.
d. A pharmacy or drugstore.
e. A medical clinic or hospital.
f. A public library.
g. A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive.
h. A licensed childcare facility.
i. A restaurant. For purposes of this paragraph, a “restaurant” means a retail food establishment that prepares, serves, and vends food directly to the consumer.

11 Government Code, section 66005.1
71 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 54

3. The housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units.

Eligible housing projects that meet the criteria would receive a 15% discount on the transportation impact fees based on Smart Growth Trip Generation Study (SANDAG, June 2010). The average reduction in trip generation from the SANDAG Study was shown to be approximately 15% relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) based trip generation factors for housing developments without these characteristics.

As used in this section, "housing development" means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floor space is for residential use.

For the purposes of this section, "transit station" has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 65460.1. "Transit station" includes planned transit stations otherwise meeting this definition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development. Transit headway criteria of 10 minutes or less at a transit hub served by three or more transit service lines is defined as cumulative headway versus individual servic e line headways.

The applicant/developer will be responsible for conducting the initial analysis of the relationship of the new project to the criteria in order to consider eligibility for the discount. The City will need to verify accuracy for final determination of project’s eligibility for the discount.

72 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 55 June 2026
Table 6.5: Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (sample)
Sample Land Use
Category
Cost per
Trip
ITE P.M.

Peak
Hour
Trip
Rate
SANDAG
Pass-by
Trip
Share
Transportation
Impact Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c d = a x b x (1 - c)
e = d /
average sq. ft.

Residential
Single Family Detached2 $ 21,866 0.93 3% $19,725 per DU $ 11.01 Apartment 21,866 0.52 3% 11,029 per DU 6.16 Nonresidential
Hotel $ 21,866 0.47 4% $ 9,866 per room n/a Supermarket 21,866 8.79 40% 115,321 per KSF 115.32 General Office 21,866 1.18 4% 24,770 per KSF 24.77 General Light Industrial 21,866 0.49 2% 10,500 per KSF 10.50 Notes: "DU" = dwelling unit; "KSF" = thousand building square feet. 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023.
2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

Source: San Diego Association of Governments, (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation Rates For The San Diego Region (including footnote (s)), April 2002; Tables 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City may use transportation impact fee revenue for any of the capital improvements listed in Table 6.1. Estimated fee revenue over the next five- year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s CIP through buildout based on a market -based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existing level of service. Table 9.5 displays the Nexus Study CIP for transportation facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP will be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that be nefit new development.

The City need not limit funding from fee revenue for each project to the fair share amounts shown in Table 6.1. The City can concentrate fee revenue on some projects in exchange for using alternative funding sources on other projects. Alternative funding sources includes state and federal transportation programs and grants. Through the planning horizon of this program (buildout), the City needs to identify approximately $254.5 million in alternative funding sources to fully fund all improvements ($ 439.5 73 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 56
million - $261 million). At a minimum the City needs to identify $ 153.2 million associated with correcting existing deficiencies noted in Table 6.1.

The City must allocate five percent of fee revenue to program administration. Administration costs included costs to collect and account for fee revenue, and costs to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act such as annual and five -year reporting requirements. The City will monitor its actual program administration costs and adjust this charge accordingly when the impact fee is updated in the future.

These projects may include bicycle and pedestrian components that are ancillary to the project and included only because they meet typical transportation improvement design standards. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee documented in the next chapter of this report cannot be used to fund the ancillary bicycle and pedestrian components of the projects included in this chapter, with the exception of project R -05, 50% of which can be funded through this fee, and up to 50% of which can be funded by bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee , net of the cost associated with development outside of the City . With the exception of project R -05, the bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee must be used to fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities unrelated to the project list in this chapter. 74 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 57 June 2026

7. BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
This chapter provides a nexus analysis, fee schedule, and estimated revenue for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities impact fee . Bicycle and pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and related improvements, and bicycle paths and bike lanes whether within or outside of the City right of way.

Facility Standards
The bicycle and pedestrian facilities impact fee uses the City’s existing capital assets to determine the facility standard and provide a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional facilities.

The impact fee funds the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain the existing ratio of facilities to service population as growth occurs. See the Facility Standard section in Chapter 3 for more explanation of this approach.

The City’s existing capital asset inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the associated facility standards is shown in Table 7.1. Service population is from Table 2.4.

Table 7.1: Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Standard
Facility Type
Existing Inventory
Existing
Service
Pop-
ulation
Existing
Facility
Standard
(units per
capita)
Linear
Feet
Average
Width
(ft.) Total
Formula a b c = a * b d e = c / d
Sidewalks 569,669 6 3,418,016 sq. ft. 37,525 91 Class I Bike Paths 32,250 10 322,500 sq. ft. 37,525 9 Class II Bike Lanes 222,578 NA 222,578 ln. ft. 37,525 6 Class III Bike Boulevards 63,575 NA 63,575 ln. ft. 37,525 2 Note: Existing facility standard rounded to nearest square foot, or linear foot per capita.

Sources: City of Goleta Infrastructure Inventory Update (2025 Infrastructure Inventory Update_250221_FINAL v1.xlsx); Table 2.4.

The bicycle and pedestrian facilities costs are shown in Table 7 .2.

Replacement costs were provided by the City for use in this analysis . The costs were developed by City transportation and development department staff from the Public Works Department as a part of the infrastructure inventory update process. The total cost for new development to maintain 75 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 58
this facility standard is $ 4,682 per capita including fee program administration costs.

Table 7.2: Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Costs
Facility Type
Existing
Facility
Standard
(units per
capita)
Average
Replace-
ment
Cost
(per
unit)1
Total Cost
(per Capita)
Formula a b c = a * b
Sidewalks 91 sq. ft. $ 44.00 $ 4,004
Class I Bike Paths 9 sq. ft. 36.25 326 Class II Bike Lanes 6 ln. ft. 18.94 114 Class III Bike Boulevards 2 ln. ft. 1.89 4 Subtotal $ 4,448
Program Administration (5% of total) 234 Total $ 4,682
Note: Total Cost per Capita rounded to the nearest whole dollar. 1 Average replacement costs identified in City of Goleta 2025 Infrastructure Inventory Update.

Sources: City of Goleta 2025 Infrastructure Inventory Update (2025 Infrastructure Inventory Update_250221_FINAL v1.xlsx), Table 7.1.

Fee Schedule
The bicycle and pedestrian facilities impact fee is shown in Table 7.3. The fee is based on the cost per capita shown in Table 7.2 necessary to maintain the City’s existing capital asset facility standard.

76 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 59 June 2026
Table 7.3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Impact Fee Land Use Category
Cost
per
Capita
Occupant
Density
(Residents/DU or
Workers/KSF)
Relative
Demand
Maximum
Justified
Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c d = a x b x c
e = d /
average
sq. ft.

Residential
Single Family Detached2 $ 4,682 2.95 1.00 $ 13,812 per DU $ 7.71 All Other Residential 4,682 2.07 1.00 9,692 per DU 10.46 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial $ 4,682 2.33 0.20 $ 2,182 per KSF $ 2.18 Office & Medical 4,682 3.13 0.20 2,931 per KSF 2.93 Industrial 4,682 1.16 0.20 1,086 per KSF 1.09 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023.
2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, and 7.2.

Use of Fee Revenue
Estimated fee revenue over the next five -year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s CIP through buildout based on a market - based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existi ng level of service. Table 9.6 displays the Nexus Study CIP for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP will be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that benefit new development.

Certain transportation facilities projects from Chapter 6 of this report may include bicycle and pedestrian components that are ancillary to the project.

The bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee documented in this chapter cannot be used to fund the bicycle and pedestrian components of the transportation facilities fee project s, with the exception of project R -05, up to 50% of which can be funded by bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities fee must be used to fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities unrelated to the project list in the prior chapter, with the exception of project R-05.
77 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 60
If revenue is used to replace an existing facility without expanding capacity, the project provides a joint benefit to existing and new development. In this case then the fee can fund only 2 1 percent of project costs based on new development as a share of total development at buildout (see Table 2.4).

However, if the City raises other funds for facility expansion that would accommodate growth, then the impact fee revenue that would have been used for expansion projects could be re -programmed to joint benefi t projects without adhering to the funding share noted here.

78 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 61 June 2026

8. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES FEE
This chapter provides a nexus analysis, fee schedule, and estimated revenue for an update to the City’s storm drain facilities impact fee. Storm drain facilities include pipes, culverts, catch basins and related facilities used to convey surface storm water.

Storm Drain Demand
New development generates storm water runoff by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. The increased stormwater runoff must be controlled through storm drain facilities. Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors, which relate the amount of impervious surface generated by various land uses to the amount of impervious surface generated by a typical single family dwelling unit. Density assumption s are based on typical densities from the City’s General Plan. The average percent impervious factors are derived from California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

Table 8.1: Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use
Density
(Units per
Acre of
KSF/Acre)1
Average
Percent
Impervious
Impervious
Surface per
DU or KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)2
Formula a b c = b * 43,560 / a d = c / 4,269
Residential
Single Family Detached 5.00 0.49 4,269 1.00 All Other Residential 20.00 0.70 1,525 0.36 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial 15.246 0.86 2,457 0.58 Office & Medical 17.424 0.69 1,725 0.40 Industrial 17.424 0.81 2,025 0.47 1 Dwelling units for residential and thousand building square feet for non -residential. Density based on typical development densities from the City's General Plan. Density based on R -SF zoning for single family detached, and R - MD zoning for all other residential. Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area-ratios (FAR) of 0.35 for retail/commercial and 0.40 for office/medical and industrial. 2 EDUs per dwelling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development .

Sources: Pages 10 and 15, User’s Guide for the California Impervious Surface Coefficients, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency, December 2010; Tables 2 -1 and 2-3, Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; Urban Economics.

79 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 62
Table 8.2 applies the EDU factors calculated in Table 8.1 to the land use scenario from Table 2.1 to express demand for storm drain facilities in terms of impervious surface EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon, and for the projected growth increment.

Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and EDUs

EDU
Factor
Existing
(DU/
KSF)

Existing
EDUs
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Growth
in EDUs
Buildout
(DU/
KSF)
Build-
out
EDUs

Residential
Single Family Detached 1.00 5,533 5,533 978 978 6,511 6,511 All Other Residential 0.36 7,622 2,744 2,351 846 9,973 3,590 Subtotal 13,155 8,277 3,329 1,824 16,484 10,101
Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial 0.58 3,353 1,945 1,268 735 4,621 2,680 Office & Medical 0.40 3,187 1,275 1,871 748 5,058 2,023 Industrial 0.47 6,684 3,141 888 417 7,572 3,559 Subtotal 13,224 6,361 4,027 1,901 17,251 8,262

Total

14,638

3,726

18,364
Percent of Total 80% 20% 100%

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 2.1.

Facility Standards
The storm drain facilities impact fee uses the City’s existing capital assets to determine the facility standard and provide a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional facilities. The impact fee would fund the expansion of storm drain facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain the existing ratio of facilities to impervious surface as growth occurs. See the Facility Standard section in Chapter 3 for more explanation of this approach.

The City’s existing inventory of storm drain facilities and associated replacement costs are shown in Table 8.3. Existing storm drain EDUs are identified in Table 8.2 . Dividing the existing quantities of facilities by existing EDUs results in the existing storm drain infrastructure standards, expressed per EDU.

80 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 63 June 2026
Table 8.3: Existing Storm Drain Facilities & Standards
Existing
EDUs
Existing
Facility
Standard
(units per
EDU) Facility Type Quantity Units
Underground Drainage 129,433 Linear Feet 14,638 8.84 Inlets 823 Each 14,638 0.06
Outlets 336 Each 14,638 0.02
Maintenance Holes 587 Each 14,638 0.04
Surface Drainage (Channel) 21,175 Cubic Yards 14,638 1.45 Sources: City of Goleta Infrastructure Inventory Update, 2026; Table 8.2.

The existing storm drain facilities cost standard in Table 8.4. The infrastructure standards from Table 8.3 are multiplied by the average replacement cost for each facility type to determine the existing cost standard per EDU. Unit replacement costs were provided by City for use in this analysis based on recent project bid results and Caltrans contract cost data, and were adjusted for inflation into 2025 dollars. The cost for new development to maintain the existing storm drain infrastructure facility standards is $10,845 per EDU including fee program administration costs.

Table 8.4: Storm Drain Facilities Cost Standard
Facility Type
Existing Facility
Standard
(units per EDU)
Average
Replace-
ment
Cost
(per unit)1
Total Cost
(per EDU)
Formula a b c = a * b
Underground Drainage 8.84 ln. ft. $ 559 $ 4,943 Inlets 0.06 each 12,326 693 Outlets 0.02 each 9,440 217 Maintenance Holes 0.04 each 22,600 906 Surface Drainage (Channel) 1.45 c.y. 2,450 3,544 Subtotal $ 10,303
Program Administration (5% of total) 542
Total $ 10,845
Note: Total Cost per EDU rounded to the nearest whole dollar. 1 Average replacement costs identified in City of Goleta 2026 Infrastructure Inventory Update.

Replacement costs provided by City for use in this analysis based on recent project bid results and Caltrans data, adjusted for inflation into current dollars. Cost per linear foot is the weighted average cost across all types of materials for a given diameter.

Sources: City of Goleta 2026 Infrastructure Inventory Update, Table 8.3

81 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 64
Fee Schedule
The storm drain facilities impact fee is shown in Table 8.5. The fee is based on the cost per EDU shown in Table 8.4 necessary to maintain the City’s existing capital asset facility standard.

Fees adopted at this level would allow the City to provide facilities to new development at the same ratio of facilities to impervious surface that currently exists in the City of Goleta today. As a policy decision, the City can adopt any fee lower than th e maximum justified amounts. However, should the City elect to adopt fees below the maximum amounts, the lost revenue required to construct the facilities must come from the City's general fund or other unrestricted revenue source. The City cannot impose higher fees on other applicants in the future to make up the lost revenue.

Table 8.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use Category
Cost
per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Maximum
Justified
Fee
Fee per
Square
Foot1
Formula a b c = a * b
d = c /
average
sq. ft.

Residential
Single Family Detached2 $10,845 1.00 $10,845 per DU $6.06 All Other Residential 10,845 0.36 3,904 per DU 4.21 Nonresidential
Retail & Commercial $10,845 0.58 $ 6,290 per KSF $6.29 Office & Medical 10,845 0.40 4,338 per KSF 4.34 Industrial 10,845 0.47 5,097 per KSF 5.10 1 Assumes 1,791 square feet per average sized single family unit and 927 for all other residential units in Goleta based on an analysis of American Housing Survey data from 2023. 2 Includes attached and detached accessory dwelling units. Fees for ADUs can only be charged on ADUs greater than 750 square feet in size, and are charged proportionally based on the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling un it.

Sources: Tables 2.2, 2.4, and 8.2.

Use of Fee Revenue
Estimated fee revenue over the next five -year planning horizon corresponding with the City’s CIP through buildout based on a market - based growth forecast is shown in the Capital Improvement Program Chapter, in Table 9.1. A five-year growth projection is used to estimate revenues to correspond with the five -year planning horizon of the City’s CIP. The planning horizon of the CIP or nexus study does not affect the calculation of the fee schedule, which is based on the existi ng level of service. Table 9.7 displays the Nexus Study CIP for storm drain facilities, as required by AB 602. Upon adoption of this fee program, the City’s CIP 82 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 65 June 2026
will be updated to incorporate projections of future DIF revenues, and program those revenues to eligible projects that benefit new development.

If revenue is used to replace an existing facility without expanding capacity, the project provides a joint benefit to existing and new development. In this case then the fee can fund only 2 0 percent of project cost s based on new development as a share of total development at buildout (see Table 8.2).

83 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 66

9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
As a requirement of AB 602, a large jurisdiction must adopt a capital improvement plan (CIP) as part of the nexus study. Large jurisdictions are defined as counties with 250,000 or more residents, or any city within those counties. Goleta meets the definition of a large jurisdiction. The City of Goleta annually adopts a CIP to plan for capital needs over a five -year window. Accordingly, this study uses a market-based revenue projection to correspond with the capital facilities that the City plans on funding with projected impact fee revenues collected during that timeframe.

Revenue Projections
Historical dwelling unit production in Goleta, as reported by the California Department of Finance was used, to estimate potential impact fee revenues within the next five -year capital improvement program planning horizon.

During the past five years, the City produced 101 single family units and 237 multifamily units. Based on the projected buildout of Goleta’s general plan, this represents approximately 10 -percent of future potential development. The analysis assumes that nonresidential development will occur at a similar rate, so 10 -percent of projected nonresidential development to buildout is assumed to occur within the next five years.

Table 9.1 displays an estimate of potential impact fee revenue over the next five years. The maximum justified fees summarized in Table E .3, are multiplied by projected quantities of residential and nonresidential development to determine the projected fee revenue within the five -year CIP planning horizon.

Capital Improvement Program
Tables 9.2 through 9.7 display the City’s five -year CIP for this Nexus Study. All projects identified in the tables below include either capacity expanding improvements to existing facilities or new facilities as needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. T he City intends to fund s these projects, to the extent possible, with impact fee revenues collected over the next five years. The tables document the estimated cost, and the approximate size, location, and time of delivery of the proposed facilities.

The tables also include the estimated share to be funded with impact fee revenues for each project.

84 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 67 June 2026
Table 9.1: Five-Year DIF Revenue Projection

Land Use
5 Year Growth
Assumptions
(DU or KSF)
Public
Administration Library Transportation Parks Storm Drain Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Total - Five
Year
Single Family Detached 101 1,064,540$ 88,173 $ 1,992,257$ 3,322,395$ 1,095,345$ 1,395,012$ 8,957,722$ All Other Residential 237 1,752,852 145,281 2,613,923 5,470,671 925,295 2,297,004 13,205,026 Retail & Commercial 126.80 211,122 17,498 14,622,739 658,853 797,585 276,678 16,584,474 Office & Medical 187.10 418,543 34,614 4,634,430 1,306,145 811,640 548,390 7,753,762 Industrial 88.80 73,610 6,098 932,405 229,728 452,627 96,437 1,790,904 Total Projected Fee Revenue 3,520,667$ 291,664 $ 24,795,754$ 10,987,792$ 4,082,492$ 4,613,521$ 48,291,889$ Sources: Table E.3; California Department of Finance, Table E-5; Urban Economics. 85 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 68
Table 9.2: Five-Year Public Administration Facilities DIF CIP No. Facility Description General Location
Approximate
Size of
Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
Percentage
Funded w/
DIF
Costs
Allocated to
DIF
1 TBD-02 City Hall Elevator 130 Cremona Drive 1 Elevator 2035 $ 1,960,000 100% $1,960,000 2 TBD-02 City Hall ADA,
Expansion and Tenant
Improvements 130 Cremona Drive
40,049 Sq.

Ft. 2035 2,750,000 21% 577,500
3 9127 - Goleta Community
Center Campus Renovation
and Capacity Expansion
Goleta Community
Center - 5679
Hollister Ave
36,087 Sq.

Ft. 2033 1,500,000 21% 315,000
4 9136-Portable Replacement
and Expansion Project
Goleta Community
Center - 5679
Hollister Ave 2,970 Sq. Ft. 2030 4,000,000 50% 2,000,000 Total $ 10,210,000 $4,852,500
Less Existing Fund Balance 683,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 3,520,667
To Be Funded with Other Sources $ 648,833
Source: City of Goleta
Justification:

1. City Hall currently does not have an elevator. Adding a new elevator would provide new capacity to facilitate the vertical circulation and movement of the anticipated additional staff required as the City expands due to new development.

2. The tenant and ADA improvements project expands operational capacity at City Hall. Since this project is modifying an existing facility, 21% of cost of improvements is allocated to new development, which corresponds with new development’s share of demand for facilities at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 2.4

3. The Goleta Community Center project will reconfigure and expand the facility to add capacity. The project will include electrical upgrades that will increase the operational capacity of the entire campus including the ability to add a cooling center. Since this project is modifying an existing facility, 21% of cost of improvements is allocated to new development, which corresponds with new development’s share of demand for facilities at the planning horizon, as identified in Table

2.4. 4. The portable buildings at the Community Center will be replaced. The new portables will double the square footage compared to the existing square footage. The impact fees will fund the share of the project that is expanding the size of the portable buildings, which corresponds with 50% of the total project cost. 86 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 69 June 2026
Table 9.3: Five-Year Public Library Facilities DIF CIP
Item No. Facility Description General Location
Approximate
Size of
Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
%
Funded
w/ DIF
Costs
Allocated to
DIF
1 Electric Book Van Citywide Various 2029 $ 375,000 100% $ 375,000 2 Expand Book Collection Citywide
6,250 items
over 5 years 2030

200,000 100% 200,000
Total $ 575,000 $ 575,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 283,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 291,664
To Be Funded with Other Sources $ 336
Source: City of Goleta

Justification:

1. An additional electric book van is a new facility that represents an increase in library capacity, so the impact fees will fund 100% of the project.

2. Expanding library collections represent an increase in library capacity, so the impact fees will fund 100% of the project.

87 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 70
Table 9.4: Five-Year Park Facilities DIF CIP
Item No. Facility Description General Location
Approximate
Size of
Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
Percentage
Funded w/
DIF
Costs
Allocated to
DIF
1 9063-Evergreen Park
Recreation Expansion
Project
Evergreen Park
(Evergreen Park
& Brandon Dr) 22 Acres 2040

$20,000,000 80% $16,000,000
2 TBD-Stow Grove Park
Development Phase 2 & 3
Stow Grove Park
(Cathedral Oaks
Rd & N La Patera
Ln) 11 Acres 2036

10,200,000 80% 8,160,000
Total $30,200,000 $ 24,160,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,320,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 10,987,792
To Be Funded with Other Sources $ 10,852,208
Source: City of Goleta

1. The planned improvements at Evergreen Park will partially rehabilitate the facility, and also add new amenities and enhance the capacity of the park to serve new development throughout the entire City. The projected cost of rehabilitation activities at the park is approximately $ 4,000,000 while the cost of new amenities that current ly do not exist is approximately $16,000,000, resulting in an allocation of 80% to new development. Accordingly, 80% of the costs which represent capacity expansion and new amenities are allocated to the impact fees and the remainder will be funded by other sources. Capacity expanding improvements include: pickleball court expansion, additional restrooms, additional playgrounds, multi-use field improvements, new trails, disc golf expansion, new parking facilities, new gathering areas and passive recreation areas.

2. The planned improvements at Stow Grove Park will partially rehabilitate the facility, while also adding new amenities and enhancing the capacity of the park to serve new development throughout the entire City . The projected cost of rehabilitation activities at the park is approximately $2,040,000 while the cost of new amenities that currently do not exist is approximately $8,160,000, resulting in an allocation of 80% to new development. Accordingly, 80% of the costs which represent capacity expansion and new amenities are allocated to the impact fees and the remainder will be funded by other so urces. Capacity expanding improvements include: new restrooms, multi -use field improvements, perimeter walking paths around the full length of the park, fitness equipment stations, passive recreation paths, observation areas, new picnic area, new horseshoe area, new outdoor games area, new adventure playground, pollinator garden, enhanced pedestrian connectivity and additional seating areas throughout the park. 88 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 71 June 2026
Table 9.5: Five-Year Transportation Facilities DIF CIP
Item
No. Facility Description
General
Location
Approximate Size
of Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
%
Funded
w/ DIF
Costs
Allocated to
DIF
1 I-12-10-New Intersection
Control - Hollister Avenue /
Cannon Green Drive
Intersection of
Hollister Avenue
and Cannon
Green Drive
New intersection
control 2032 $ 5,925,000 18% $ 1,084,240
2 I-12-12-New Intersection
Control - Hollister Avenue /
La Sumida Gardens Lane
Intersection of
Hollister Avenue
and La Sumida
Gardens Ln
New intersection
control 2035

6,500,000 25%

1,657,128
3 9143-Goleta US 101
Bike/Ped Overcrossing
Western Goleta,
From San
Rossano Dr along
Calle Real to
Ellwood Station
Rd
Approx. 2,100 LF of
Bike/Ped
Overcrossing 2046

46,150,000 85%

39,250,575
4 9001-R-02-Hollister Avenue
Complete Streets Corridor
Hollister Avenue,
from Fairview
Avenue to S
Kellogg Avenue
Approx. 3,100 LF of
Road, Median, Curb
& Gutter, Sidewalk,
Hardscape and
Landscaping
Improvements 2036

10,750,000 14%

1,539,793
Total $43,531,736
Less Existing Fund Balance 1,296,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 24,795,754
To Be Funded with Other Sources $17,439,982
Source: City of Goleta

The justification for the projects, costs and percentage funded by new development within Goleta is documented in Chapter 6 of this report, and Appendices A and B. Note that the “% funded by DIF” column corresponds with new development in Goleta’s total allocated share of costs, as opposed to Goleta’s share of costs allocated to growth, which is shown in Table 6.1.

89 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 72
Table 9.6: Five-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities DIF CIP Item No. Facility Description General Location
Approximate
Size of
Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
%
Funded
w/ DIF
Costs
Allocated to
DIF
1 9109-Ward Drive Sidewalk
849 Ward Dr (gap
along west side of
Ward Dr between
Ekwill St and Obern
Trail)
Approx. 230
LF of
Sidewalk 2033 $1,680,000 100% $ 1,680,000
2 9143-Goleta US 101
Bike/Ped Overcrossing
Western Goleta,
From San Rossano
Dr along Calle Real
to Ellwood Station
Rd
Approx.
2,100 LF of
Bike/Ped
Overcrossing 2046

46,150,000 85%

39,250,575
3 FY2025/26 TBD-08 South La
Patera Sidewalk and Bike
Lane Improvements
S La Patera,
between Hollister
Ave and Train
Depot (Goleta
Station)
3,200 LF of
Class IV Bike
Lanes, 600
LF of new
sidewalk,
2,100 LF of
ADA
upgrades to
existing
sidewalk 2030

2,500,000 64%

1,600,000
4 Bike Ped Master Plan
Update N/A N/A 2030

500,000 21%

105,000
Total $ 42,635,575
Less Existing Fund Balance 291,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 4,613,521 To Be Funded with Other Sources $ 37,731,055
Source: City of Goleta

90 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 73 June 2026
Justification:

1. This project will complete 230 feet of sidewalk that currently does not exist, which will add to the capacity of the Citywide sidewalk network. 100% of these costs are allocated to the impact fee because it is a new facility.

2. The 101 bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing will help the City address future LOS deficiencies caused by new development.

Consistent with the half of the project that is included in the transportation impact fee, approximately 85% of this project can be allocated to new development in Goleta, with the remainder being allocated to new development outside of the City.

3. The improvements on South La Patera Lane will partially complete sidewalk segments that currently do not exist, and will partially rehabilitate existing sidewalks. Approximately 64% of the cost identified are needed for new sidewalks, and class IV bike lanes with the remainder of the costs associated with ADA upgrades to existing sidewalks. Accordingly, 64% of the costs will be funded with impact fee revenue.

4. The update to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will identify future facilities needed to serve existing and new development. Since this project is needed to serve both existing and new development, 21% of cost of improvements is allocated to n ew development, which corresponds with new development’s share of demand for facilities at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 2.4.

91 City of Goleta Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update June 2026 74
Table 9.7: Five-Year Storm Drain Facilities DIF CIP
Item No. Facility Description General Location
Approximate
Size of Facility
Estimated
Time of
Availability
Estimated
Cost
%
Funded
w/ DIF
Costs
Allocated
to DIF
1 9085-Goleta Storm Drain
Master Plan
Various Citywide
Locations Master Plan 2028

$600,000 20%

$120,000
2 9107-Old Town South
Fairview Avenue, High Flow
Trash Capture Devices
Old Town (Drainage
Upgrades Capacity
Increasing for portions
of Fairview, Hollister,
Pine and Tecolote
Aves)
Approx. 4,800
LF of storm
drain pipe, 24
Drop Inlets, and
4 Outfalls 2030

4,754,000 100%

4,754,000
3 9119-Ellwood Beach Drive
Drainage
50' South of 447
Ellwood Beach Drive
at the end of Ellwood
Beach Drive
300' of 36”
Reinforced
Concrete pipe 2030

2,000,000 100%

2,000,000
4 TBD- Federal Emergency
Management Agency Letter
of Map Revisions
San Jose Creek from
Calle Real/US
Highway 101 to State
Route 217
Approx. 2,600
LF of San Jose
Creek from
Calle Real/US
101 to State
Route 217 2030

500,000 100%

500,000
Total

$7,374,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 565,000
Less Five-Year Projected Fee Revenue 4,082,492
To Be Funded with Other Sources $2,726,508
Source: City of Goleta

Justification:

1. The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan will identify future facilities needed to serve existing and new development. Since this project is needed to serve both existing and new development, 20% of cost of improvements is allocated to new development, which cor responds with new development’s share of demand for facilities at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 8.2.
92 Public Facilities Impact Fee Program Update City of Goleta 75 June 2026

2. There are currently no trash capture devices on this segment. Since this project is a new facility that does not currently exist, 100% of the costs are funded through the impact fees.

3. This project will provide a storm drain along Ellwood Beach Drive that currently does not exist. Since it is a new facility 100% of the project is allocated to new development.

4. This project will allow development to occur in areas that are currently not developable, so 100% of the project costs are allocated to new development.

Goleta City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Goleta City Council
July 21, 2026